Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 07-08-2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0swy

What's the current 'state of play' on who might have wrote what when? I've been arguing with a believer that there are no countemporaneous accounts of Jesus and that the authorship of the Gospels is highly debated, and although I think I'm correct in saying this I don't know the details. I'm aware, for example, that some of the Gospels seem to copy from others and that at least one is generally understood to have been written by a succession of authors, but other than that I'm in the dark. Many thanks for any views.

It should be noted that Christian belief is not going to evaporate if dates and authorship are proved to be adverse. Faith depends on inner conviction of the truth as presented in the gospel, which may be transmitted entirely independently of direct reference to the Bible. It is often practical change in the lives of new believers that prompts initial interest in and attention to the gospel. Faith comes from acceptance of the gospel, acceptance of the Bible comes through faith.

So Bible acceptance as an inerrant (though not a consistently literally true) standard is sourced to radically improved personal behavior, 'the proof of the pudding'. It is unlikely indeed that true faith can be affected by questions of authorship, because the Christian does not really care who wrote what, or even that it cannot be proved that what is written is a true record. What is written (in original languages) is found to be totally agreeable to those who 'like the taste of the pudding'. The two go together perfectly. Bible acceptance is not a requirement put upon anyone else, by Christians. It's a personal thing; though amazing, from a human pov, that so many, those many who put actions before words, completely agree with every word of it.

Clouseau · 07-08-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

There is a story in John chapter 5 where Jesus heals a man at a pool with 5 porches or porticoes. There is archeological evidence that the 5 porches were part of a temple built to honor Asclepis, the greek God of healing by the roman Emperor Hadrian sometime around 125 CE. [I don't remember the exact date] This would date John's Gospel to a later time 95 years after Jesus, and certainly not written by the Apostle John.
Try Googling...but you will find that the Christians have loaded up the internet with propaganda so you can't find the tree you are looking for in the Christian forest.
As you read John 5, you can certainly see the pagan influence as the first in the water gets healed and healing has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. It really doesn't make sense in a Jewish or Christian context. The Jews would have protested having a temple where the first person in the water gets healed, so close to the temple mount unless this temple was built after the Jews were diminished in power, after the revolt of 70CE or after the Bar Korba revolt.

stuart shepherd

People who were once drunks, addicts, thieves, violent, disturbed etc. are not concerned about that sort of thing. They are grateful that they have the motivation to live happy and useful lives with their families, as indeed their families are grateful. So are people who were never in a noticeably antisocial condition, but have had their lives improved very greatly by what they call the fruits of the Spirit of God, in themselves and in others. These 'fruits' include patience, self-control, usefulness, reliability, compassion, willingness to forgive, humility and concord- the things that make life a joy, not a challenge. With respect, John's porticos don't compare.

Clouseau · 07-08-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

There is another Scripture which suggests a late date.

Is that as important as patience, self-control, usefulness, reliability, compassion, willingness to forgive, humility and concord?

Toto · 07-08-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

...
People who were once drunks, addicts, thieves, violent, disturbed etc. are not concerned about that sort of thing. They are grateful that they have the motivation to live happy and useful lives with their families, as indeed their families are grateful. So are people who were never in a noticeably antisocial condition, but have had their lives improved very greatly by what they call the fruits of the Spirit of God, in themselves and in others. These 'fruits' include patience, self-control, usefulness, reliability, compassion, willingness to forgive, humility and concord- the things that make life a joy, not a challenge. With respect, John's porticos don't compare.

This is just a bit off topic, after you mention that Christian don't care about the literal accuracy of Biblical stories, as long as they work. Even if some Christians don't care that their religion might be based on a lie, secular scholars still have some interest in historical and literary analysis. And there are some Christians who try to prove the truth of their religion by reference to secular historical analysis.

But in fact, there is no scientific evidence that Christian fables work any better than Buddhist fables or secular therapies in transforming lives. If you wish to discuss this further, please start a thread in the appropriate forum.

Clouseau · 07-08-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

...
People who were once drunks, addicts, thieves, violent, disturbed etc. are not concerned about that sort of thing. They are grateful that they have the motivation to live happy and useful lives with their families, as indeed their families are grateful. So are people who were never in a noticeably antisocial condition, but have had their lives improved very greatly by what they call the fruits of the Spirit of God, in themselves and in others. These 'fruits' include patience, self-control, usefulness, reliability, compassion, willingness to forgive, humility and concord- the things that make life a joy, not a challenge. With respect, John's porticos don't compare.

Quote:

This is just a bit off topic, after you mention that Christian don't care about the literal accuracy of Biblical stories, as long as they work.

I thoroughly agree that it is off topic, but the following off-topic, offensive and patronising remark was made that was permitted to stand, and natural justice required the right of reply, and in this thread. stuart shepherd's response displayed lack of comprehension, unless it was a calculatedly ill-mannered response.

'Christians can be very defensive when challenged but the inquisitive approach often gets them thinking/questioning what they believe.'

Quote:

But in fact, there is no scientific evidence that Christian fables work any better than Buddhist fables or secular therapies in transforming lives.

Start a new thread, and we'll see how true that is.

PhilosopherJay · 07-08-2007, 04:47 PM

Hi Clouseau,

Well, I suppose life is better until they lose their new jobs for criticizing their co-workers for adultery, their wives divorce them for only wanting to have sex for pro-creation, and they end up hearing the voice of God telling them to sacrifice their children if they want to prove their faith and enter the kingdom of heaven.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

There is a story in John chapter 5 where Jesus heals a man at a pool with 5 porches or porticoes. There is archeological evidence that the 5 porches were part of a temple built to honor Asclepis, the greek God of healing by the roman Emperor Hadrian sometime around 125 CE. [I don't remember the exact date] This would date John's Gospel to a later time 95 years after Jesus, and certainly not written by the Apostle John.
Try Googling...but you will find that the Christians have loaded up the internet with propaganda so you can't find the tree you are looking for in the Christian forest.
As you read John 5, you can certainly see the pagan influence as the first in the water gets healed and healing has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. It really doesn't make sense in a Jewish or Christian context. The Jews would have protested having a temple where the first person in the water gets healed, so close to the temple mount unless this temple was built after the Jews were diminished in power, after the revolt of 70CE or after the Bar Korba revolt.

stuart shepherd

People who were once drunks, addicts, thieves, violent, disturbed etc. are not concerned about that sort of thing. They are grateful that they have the motivation to live happy and useful lives with their families, as indeed their families are grateful. So are people who were never in a noticeably antisocial condition, but have had their lives improved very greatly by what they call the fruits of the Spirit of God, in themselves and in others. These 'fruits' include patience, self-control, usefulness, reliability, compassion, willingness to forgive, humility and concord- the things that make life a joy, not a challenge. With respect, John's porticos don't compare.

Toto · 07-08-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I thoroughly agree that it is off topic, but the following off-topic, offensive and patronising remark was made that was permitted to stand, and natural justice required the right of reply, and in this thread. stuart shepherd's response displayed lack of comprehension, unless it was a calculatedly ill-mannered response.

'Christians can be very defensive when challenged but the inquisitive approach often gets them thinking/questioning what they believe.'

I don't see that remark in this thread; furthermore it is not that offensive and patronizing to most people. (It is an accurate observation that Christians can be defensive when challenged.) But most importantly, if you find a remark that offensive, you may report it for moderator action -- but it does not give you license to drag a thread off topic.

Quote:

But in fact, there is no scientific evidence that Christian fables work any better than Buddhist fables or secular therapies in transforming lives.

Start a new thread, and we'll see how true that is.

You will find threads like that in various places on these boards, which compare the success of faith based alcholics anonymous to secular programs for sobriety. I don't need to start a new one.

Clouseau · 07-09-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I thoroughly agree that it is off topic, but the following off-topic, offensive and patronising remark was made that was permitted to stand, and natural justice required the right of reply, and in this thread. stuart shepherd's response displayed lack of comprehension, unless it was a calculatedly ill-mannered response.

'Christians can be very defensive when challenged but the inquisitive approach often gets them thinking/questioning what they believe.'

Quote:

I don't see that remark in this thread;

Look in the thread that it was posted in.

Quote:

furthermore it is not that offensive and patronizing to most people.

Of course not. Very few are Christians. What is not opinion is that the remark is off topic.

Quote:

(It is an accurate observation that Christians can be defensive when challenged.)

Let's see the data.

Quote:

But most importantly, if you find a remark that offensive, you may report it for moderator action -- but it does not give you license to drag a thread off topic.

The point is that moderation had not removed the original, quoted remark that is off-topic, and still hasn't!

Quote:

Start a new thread, and we'll see how true that is.

Quote:

You will find threads like that in various places on these boards, which compare the success of faith based alcholics anonymous to secular programs for sobriety. I don't need to start a new one.

I take that as concession that the remark was unsustainable.

Toto · 07-09-2007, 11:07 AM

Link to the thread if you want some action taken or an explanation.

I'm not going to start another thread on why AA is no better than secular therapies for alcoholism. I'm too busy splitting threads and cleaning up here.

Clouseau · 07-09-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Link to the thread if you want some action taken or an explanation.

I'm not going to start another thread on why AA is no better than secular therapies for alcoholism. I'm too busy splitting threads and cleaning up here.

There's no rush.

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

07-09-2007, 11:07 AM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Link to the thread if you want some action taken or an explanation. I'm not going to start another thread on why AA is no better than secular therapies for alcoholism. I'm too busy splitting threads and cleaning up here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.