Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-29-2004, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You are right that there are quite a few things here that I haven't taken the time to read about, but I have read about some of them and have found liberal scholarship in general to make great claims with no evidence. Often the claims are silly when you take the time to dig into them and understand what they are really saying.

Could you provide some examples?

aChristian · 12-29-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Could you provide some examples?

Yes. Form criticism in the Old Testament. They break up a verse into three different authors based on their idea of how history should have been and on some silly rules on how a person is only allowed to use one word for an idea. If two words are used, it must be two different people. They have never found three different manuscripts with the verses broken up. All they find are the complete verses in the manuscripts.

Chili · 12-29-2004, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Peter and Paul died as martyrs in Rome. Tradition has it that Mark also died as a martyr.

.

That would work especially well if the bible is presented to the faithful as real but in the end was discovered as myth in understanding.

Accordingly, if I was pope I would, and should, take Peter and Paul home because Peter represents 'unfailing faith' and Paul is the real life evidence of this faith. It was upon this faith of Peter that Jesus promised to built his Church and therefore they should be buried below St.Peter. Mark should be buried just outside of Rome since he testified on their behalf and Matthew can be buried anywhere except in Rome as long as he is buried deep enough.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-29-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Yes. Form criticism in the Old Testament. They break up a verse into three different authors based on their idea of how history should have been and on some silly rules on how a person is only allowed to use one word for an idea. If two words are used, it must be two different people. They have never found three different manuscripts with the verses broken up. All they find are the complete verses in the manuscripts.

And what is your expertise in Hebrew? Literary criticism? Ancient history?

What do you actually know of how the multiple source theory was derived and what is your rebuttal? What makes it "silly?" Do you understand Hebrew dialects and literary styles enough to refute the theory. What do you know of the archaeology of Canaan and the proto-Judaic pantheons?

You're going to have to do better than you're doing. The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it "silly." Show us that you understand the theory and show us why it's wrong.

aChristian · 12-29-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think you need to read more carefully. What Vork actually said was that "

As far as scholars know, the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' death, none of the writers of those stories were executed (the writers are all unknown), and many believe that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of god."

You are right. I didn't read it carefully enough.

Since the authors are completely unknown, there is absolutely no reason to presume (and certainly not to assert as fact as you did) that the authors were executed. The assertion is at best an argument from silence and an exceedingly weak one at that. You have to understand that you cannot use one unsubstantiated assertion (the authors of the gospels were executed) to support another one (therefore they were telling the truth).

The authors are not completely unknown. We have the historical documents to support this claim. Many scholars will agree with this.

"John" said nothing of the sort. Jn. 21:24 is an appended statement which was not part of the original book. It was added on later. It also doesn't say that the disciple's name was "John." For a number of very good reasons, historians don't believe that the Gospel could have been written by an apostle.

Have you found complete manuscripts where John 21:24 is left out or are you trying to take it out because you don't like it?

Nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses. The "fathers" were wrong and they were actually NOT in any position to know what they were talking about. They were passing on legends and oral tradition when they weren't inventing things straight out. I would encourage you to do a forum search for gospel/ New Testament authorship and bring yourself up to snuff on the scholarship. Better yet, avail yourself of Peter Kirby's excellent website Early Christian Writings and really dig into some articles. Right now you're coming off like rather a naif. You better make sure you know what you're getting into before you climb into this particular ring.

There are plenty of scholars who believe that the NT was written by eyewitnesses. I would be careful before you accused the fathers of being liars and dupes. They don't sound that stupid or dishonest to me. If I get time I will look at that website and let you know what I think. At this point, I think that you are misinformed about the fathers and the eyewitnesses.

Fallacious argument. You're assuming that Jesus actually said what the NT claims he said.

Many scholars believe he did. I realized the logical fallacy when I stated it. Your theories are just so far off from the facts and I didn't have the time to go further into it so I just quoted the facts. I realize that the point of this website is to go further into it, so I really would need to go to the proof that we have reliable eyewitnessed to the resurrection. I think that evidence is there and irrefutable.

Vivisector · 12-29-2004, 09:29 PM

Looking over Toto's and Rick's exchanges, I think Toto has an elegant point: it's impossible for a Christian to conclude there was no HJ. An ex-Christian, maybe. But Christian? I don't see how, unless a heckuva lot has happened during my time away from the faith.

If it's axiomatic that all Christians must (by definition) believe in a HJ, then perhaps it's wise after all to at least check their homework on occasion.

I would hold with Toto on the absence of a conspiracy. I would go on to note that many scholars who consider themselves Christian have arrived at some very unorthodox views, which suggests a high degree of academic integrity. I suspect that some of these scholars would view the existence of a HJ as simply the best explanation for the data (an application of Occam's Razor, maybe).

aChristian · 12-29-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

And what is your expertise in Hebrew? Literary criticism? Ancient history?

What do you actually know of how the multiple source theory was derived and what is your rebuttal? What makes it "silly?" Do you understand Hebrew dialects and literary styles enough to refute the theory. What do you know of the archaeology of Canaan and the proto-Judaic pantheons?

You're going to have to do better than you're doing. The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it "silly." Show us that you understand the theory and show us why it's wrong.

It is not silly because I don't like it.
I studied the theory years ago enough to see that it had no validity in my opinion.

I know that they have not found different manuscripts with the verses parsed out as the JEDP rules do. The rules have been applied to modern documents known to be written by one author and the rules say that multiple authors wrote the document. The theory claimed late words and they have consistently been found to be wrong about this when investigated further.

The rules themselves were arbitrary in my opinion.

It started by saying Gen 1 and Gen 2 had to be by different authors because Gen 1 uses Elohim and Gen 2 uses Yahweh. I've read about form criticism and I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I have studied enough Hebrew to see the fallacies in the theory.

The theory has been refuted by conservative scholars and their arguments are convincing.

Mr. Aardvark · 12-29-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Better yet, avail yourself of Peter Kirby's excellent website Early Christian Writings and really dig into some articles.

Great website. Thanks for posting it.

I notice that the website contains some info on the various theories about the alleged historical Jesus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Mr. Aardvark · 12-29-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Many scholars believe he did. I realized the logical fallacy when I stated it. Your theories are just so far off from the facts and I didn't have the time to go further into it so I just quoted the facts. I realize that the point of this website is to go further into it, so I really would need to go to the proof that we have reliable eyewitnessed to the resurrection. I think that evidence is there and irrefutable.

Is this the standard conservative Christian apologetic which assumes the accounts of the resurrection found in the Gospels to be true in order to prove the reliability of the Gospels? If so, then it is clear that that is approach is viciously circular.

aChristian · 12-29-2004, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Aardvark

Is this the standard conservative Christian apologetic which assumes the accounts of the resurrection found in the Gospels to be true in order to prove the reliability of the Gospels? If so, then it is clear that that is approach is viciously circular.

No. I think that you can study the history and show that the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection are backed up by the historical evidence. In establishing the truth of the resurrection, you will have had to establish the honesty and knowledge of the apostles in the process. Once the resurrection and honesty of the apostles is established, you can imply that all the Bible is true. This is because Jesus accepted the OT and promised the disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to teach them and they wrote the New Testament.

View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ?
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical.	99	29.46%
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus.	105	31.25%
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion.	132	39.29%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

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

12-29-2004, 09:29 PM	#96
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	Looking over Toto's and Rick's exchanges, I think Toto has an elegant point: it's impossible for a Christian to conclude there was no HJ. An ex-Christian, maybe. But Christian? I don't see how, unless a heckuva lot has happened during my time away from the faith. If it's axiomatic that all Christians must (by definition) believe in a HJ, then perhaps it's wise after all to at least check their homework on occasion. I would hold with Toto on the absence of a conspiracy. I would go on to note that many scholars who consider themselves Christian have arrived at some very unorthodox views, which suggests a high degree of academic integrity. I suspect that some of these scholars would view the existence of a HJ as simply the best explanation for the data (an application of Occam's Razor, maybe).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.