Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 08-02-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What we don't know yet is whether you have any idea.

You have already admitted you have no idea. How many times must I tell you that it is true?

Whether I have an idea about 'What happened to Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles" ' is not the subject of discussion. Your irrelevancies gain no value from repetition.

IamJoseph · 08-02-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I've read the Gospels many times and don't recall ever seeing that Jews are born of the devil. Can you point me to a passage?

Thanks in advance.

Probably referring to John 8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Historically, the Hebrew has never made a proven false claim - and Europe has never made a truthful claim ever. Today, every theological statement from Europe has been a proven lie.

J-D · 08-02-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Probably referring to John 8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Historically, the Hebrew has never made a proven false claim - and Europe has never made a truthful claim ever. Today, every theological statement from Europe has been a proven lie.

Languages don't make claims. Continents don't make claims. People make claims. So you're talking gibberish.

sschlichter · 08-05-2009, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

...You may be surprised that I do not believe the gospels to be a reporters account of the life of Christ. I see them as very biased (toward God and his Kingdom) and more of a marketing effort (for lack of better term). I do not mean this in a negative light but the gospels are not just to report facts. They are meant to persuade. I see many on this site saying that Matthew wrote this or that for his theological aims - this is true. it does not make the story or the theology untrue or the aim un-worthy.

How can you know if the story is true or not? Faith?

If the Gospels are just tall tales told "so that you will believe", then how can you determine what Jesus ever said or did?

Do you just believe in Paul's theology?

look at the home page of this web site. You see books that are being marketed to you. A caption of each book is meant to grab your attention and persuade you that you need each book. The intent or aims of the author do not make what he/she says to be true or untrue. The existence of intent on the part of the author does not imply a lack of truth.

~steve

sschlichter · 08-05-2009, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I am curious why you think journalism would be a particular advantage.

It isn't necessarily any advantage. I've known a few reporters who got no advantage from it. But if you do it right, you get a feel for how much you can believe when certain people tell you certain things.

I'm not a bit surprised. I understand that apologists see a difference between what journalists do and what the gospel authors were doing.

OK, but you're claiming we should believe the facts that they do report. My point is that if they had been reporters, they would have no credibility. Here is an excerpt from something on my Web site that addresses that issue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougshaver.com

I have worked in the newspaper business, and I can assure anyone that if any newspaper editor were to send four reporters to cover the resurrection and they had come back with four stories as discrepant as the four gospels, that editor would not run all four stories as they were. He would assume that at least three of the reporters had gotten some of their facts wrong. He would instruct the four of them to go back to their sources, recheck their facts, and make whatever rewrites were necessary to harmonize their accounts.

No collusion would be required or expected. There would be no expectation that all four would end up sounding just like each other. Each reporter's personality could shine through in all its idiosyncratic glory. But they would be consistent. And more to the point, all readers would perceive them to be consistent.

Suppose that those reporters -- all four of them, together in the editor's office -- were to assure the editor that each story was already accurate. Suppose each one vouches for the others. Each one says that none of the others contradicts him. The editor would not be satisfied with this, even if he believed the reporters. He would not be satisfied because he would know that most of his readers would not believe that all four writers were giving an accurate account. The editor would know that if he ran the stories as they were, his newspaper's credibility would suffer. The editor would insist on rewrites that would eliminate the appearance of contradictions. When it comes to credibility, an apparent contradiction is every bit as damaging as a real contradiction.

The analogy of an editor is too simplistic. the editor is working in his own language. Perhaps if all his reporters were from different cultures and he had to translate the accounts into his language, understand the idioms, cultural issues, etc. then the analogy would hold up. A typical editor would probably know he is not qualified to do that.

I bet if you pick an event in history and find 4 reports of similar scope to the gospels on that event (that you feel are accurate), we will find what appear to be technical errors in their accounts that will require a knowledge of the culture, language,circumstances, or authors perspective to reconcile.

~Steve

Awmte · 08-05-2009, 05:43 AM

Johnny Skeptic · 08-05-2009, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

One of the most common skeptics objections to the empty tomb of Jesus is that the disciples stole Jesus' body and moved it to fool people into thinking Jesus was resurrected.

There is no need for such an objection because logically, in order for the stolen body to be an issue, it first has to be reasonally established where the body was put in the first place. There is not sufficient historical evidence that the body of Jesus was put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb, or in any other specific place.

What historical evidence do you have that Jesus predicted that he would rise from the dead? If he didn't, which is quite possible, that would have greatly lessened the chances that a stolen body story would have been much of an issue in the first century.

lpetrich · 08-05-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I bet if you pick an event in history and find 4 reports of similar scope to the gospels on that event (that you feel are accurate), we will find what appear to be technical errors in their accounts that will require a knowledge of the culture, language,circumstances, or authors perspective to reconcile.

This sort of argumentation reminds me of "It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it", which was said by an American Army officer in the Vietnam War. In the case of the Bible, it becomes "It was necessary to damn it in order to save it"..

If it is necessary to go through such contortions to demonstrate that the Bible is a coherent text, then it was not very clearly written.

There are LOTS more than "technical errors" in the Bible. Try Dan Barker's Easter challenge some time. Line up all the accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection and put together a coherent narrative without subtracting anything.

sschlichter · 08-05-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I bet if you pick an event in history and find 4 reports of similar scope to the gospels on that event (that you feel are accurate), we will find what appear to be technical errors in their accounts that will require a knowledge of the culture, language,circumstances, or authors perspective to reconcile.

This sort of argumentation reminds me of "It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it", which was said by an American Army officer in the Vietnam War. In the case of the Bible, it becomes "It was necessary to damn it in order to save it"..

If it is necessary to go through such contortions to demonstrate that the Bible is a coherent text, then it was not very clearly written.

There are LOTS more than "technical errors" in the Bible. Try Dan Barker's Easter challenge some time. Line up all the accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection and put together a coherent narrative without subtracting anything.

You lost me with the village analogy.

www.schlichters.com/GospelHarmonyBurialResurrectionAscension.htm

IamJoseph · 08-05-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Historically, the Hebrew has never made a proven false claim - and Europe has never made a truthful claim ever. Today, every theological statement from Europe has been a proven lie.

Languages don't make claims. Continents don't make claims. People make claims. So you're talking gibberish.

I refer to the hebrew writings relative to other writings making contradictory reports, not to peoples and continents. That all contradicting writings cannot be equally true is not gibberish but an open enigma facing humanity.

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

08-05-2009, 05:43 AM	#376
Awmte Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Proxima Centauri Posts: 467	<off topic digression removed>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.