Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RGD · 06-05-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

I'm sending this to Biblical Criticism & History Forum.

An excellent idea. That's why you're an admin, and I'm merely an annoying poster. :notworthy:

RGD · 06-05-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggazoo

Many instances in the Bible, including the controversy over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, has been substantiated by both historical and archeological evidence.

Sure. Like any ancient text, there is a great deal of factual information in the Bible. The problem is that accuracy in one instance cannot be used to demonstrate overall accuracy. That's why we look for non-partisan, non-Biblical sources for corroboration.

Quote:

When Paul, James, Peter, and many others were preaching about the resurrection, there is no record, even in the Palestinian Talmud, of anyone ever disputing what these men and women had witnessed.

But there is also no non-Biblical confirmation that these men did preach about the resurrection. That's the problem.

Quote:

Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before His assension (sp?) and had spoken to groups of people up to 5,000. His ministry was real, and He quoted quite a bit from the existing scriptures (which is now the OT).

All unsupported by anything except the most partisan source conceivable. That's why there is debate about Jesus' existence.

Quote:

So we know historically Jesus, His ministry, death, resurrection, and assension was real, and in His ministry He validated the OT, which also has alot of strong support hisorically and archeaologically.

No, actually we don't. Using precisely the same logic, you must admit that the Qu'ran is accurate, and therefore Jesus is merely another prophet, didn't die on the cross, and was not divine. The very same logic.

Quote:

Josephus was a noted historian and here is a passage he wrote in 93 A.D.:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accursed by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prohesied these and countless other marvelous things about him."

As noted before, the Josephus passage is widely considered to be an interpolation.

Quote:

Another well noted historian was actually the writer of two of the books of the Bible- Luke. Archaeology has shown that he was write in many of his descriptions. Luke refered to Lysanias asbeing the tetrarch of Abilene in 27 A.D. For years scholars were using this to disprove Luke's credibility since Lysanias was not a tetrarch but a ruler 50 years earlier, but later we see archaeological evidence to prove Luke's statement:

"An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus- just as Luke had written."- John McRay, Ph.D.

Sounds questionable. I'll have to look up McRay.

Quote:

"It's extremely significant that Luke has been established to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke's references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake."- McRay

And who is this McRay fellow? Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Archaeology, at Wheaton College Graduate School.

In other words, yet another biased source. Find me an atheist who makes the same claim, and I'll start thinking you might have something.

Quote:

Historian Michael Grant stated in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, "True, the discovery ofthe empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty."

The problem is that an empty tomb does not establish resurrection. Or divinity. Or pretty much anything.

The Bible is, by it's very nature, a biased source. Historians prefer to cross-check such sources with un-biased ones. But there aren't any for Jesus. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

xaxxat · 06-05-2006, 02:40 PM

one allegiance is going to post some evidence, from those original texts he has access to...

RGD · 06-05-2006, 02:42 PM

Somehow I suspect that one allegiance is going to get creamed in this forum. If I ate popcorn, I'd pop some and watch.

show_no_mercy · 06-05-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

Wrong. There is no historic record that Jesus ever existed. No disciples, no witnesses…nothing. Not a single solitary record. Not a letter, not a passing reference, nothing, zip, nada.

Many instances in the Bible, including the controversy over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, has been substantiated by both historical and archeological evidence. When Paul, James, Peter, and many others were preaching about the resurrection, there is no record, even in the Palestinian Talmud, of anyone ever disputing what these men and women had witnessed. Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before His assension (sp?) and had spoken to groups of people up to 5,000.

Wrong. There's no historical record that Jesus ever existed. The only "record" we have of Jesus' life were written between 40 and 100 years after his alleged death. The only evidence we have of Jesus' existence is heresay: "I heard from some dude that said that this guy name Jesus did all these cool things."

Most of what Christianity is today is an amalgamation of those third person accounts of Jesus (the gospels) and Pauls epistles. Paul never saw Jesus - he had a "vision".

To build a strong corroboration for the historicity of Jesus, you're going to have to provide some CONTEMPORARY writings about him. The vast majority of our knowledge of history comes from CONTEMPORARY writings about the historical figure in question. No such documentation exists about Jesus.

ZikZak · 06-05-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

P4. The Bible has been proven to be remarkably accurate in what it says about the ancient world. For example, in citing 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 islands, and many historical rulers.

Gone With the Wind is remarkably accurate in what it says about the Civil War era. For example, in citing the names of the states of Georgia, Alabama, a number of cities and islands, and even names Abraham Lincoln as the ruler of the U.S. Therefore, Gone With the Wind is remarkably accurate and Scarlet O'Hara was a real person.

ZikZak · 06-05-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

P1. Gospels were written by eye witnesses within 40 years of the events described, there is a fair degree of accuracy here.

Moby Dick was written by Ishmael, an eyewitness to all of the events described. Better than the Gospels, it's even written in the first person. Therefore, Moby Dick is at least fairly accurate and we can say that the White Whale actually existed.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-05-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

Umm come again, walking fish, talking monkey's and magical atoms that come to life on their own.

Patriarch Verlch:

I have created a thread in E/C for you to comment on such matters. Here, it is off-topic.

For the attention of Patriarch Verlch

one allegiance · 06-05-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Well, at least you admit it looks random - that's a start. The question is whether you are actually going to present a formal argument and whether it will be nice.

OK.

This certainly appears to be a complete non-sequitur: I don't think anyone here is claiming that history is purely relative. I would argue that history is purely an approximation of the truth, however.

It is obviously as credible as any source of it's type and age can be. It is an apologetic, written by passionate believers in a particular cause. It certainly contains some accurate historical information, but it cannot be regarded as a valid source for supernatural information unless you admit that all religious documents are a valid source. And since the Bible is contradicted by the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Tao te Ching, etc. that makes it valueless for supernatural data.

This is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship.

This is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship.

Actually, you're wrong about that. Or wrong in some instances and right in others. But again, this is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship.

No, it has not. This is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship. Nor is this the point in question: no one here is disputing that some accurate information may be found in the Bible. But the presence of a single accurate data point does not make the ENTIRETY of the Bible accurate.

You'd better memorize that, 'cause you're going to get nailed on it.

That's not what we've said. What we have pointed out is that in most cases it is the single source of information; that is cannot be corroborated; and that supernatural events require extraordinary support. So far you have given no support.

OK.

This is irrational: what you have established is that the Council of Nicea took place (which we don't dispute) and that at the council, the Nicene Creed was adopted (which we also don't dispute).

That does nothing to establish whether or not the creed is correct. All you have done is point out that's it's reasonable to conclude that a group of folks meeting in Nicea in the early part of the 4th century agreed on a point of belief.

THAT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID BELIEF IS TRUE.

Not so far as I know. Got an actual reference? Congratulations. It doesn't say that Jesus was stoned - so your claim that this is identical is a complete fabrication. The Josephus passage is generally considered to be an interpolation.

And again, this does nothing to establish that Jesus was God, or that the Gospels should be taken as accurate when making extraordinary claims.

So what?

So what? Tacitus is simply reporting on a set of beliefs present in his day - this does not establish that those beliefs are true. A complete lie. It's not nice for Christians to lie. Do try again, please. Provide evidence for this. He could not have done so. This passage does nothing to establish his 'historicity' - it only establishes that Tacitus reported on a group in Rome holding certain beliefs. The fact that you don't understand it (apparently) does not mean there is a problem with it.

A completely illogical non-sequitur. What you have presented is evidence that some people in the past had a particular belief; you have not established that the belief was TRUE.

Sure. The Qu'ran lays it all out very nicely. Too bad for that non-divine prophet guy Jesus, eh? You got caught using bogus evidence. Take it like a man and admit it. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus was more than a man And you've provided no evidence whatsoever for that. You're doing a fairly good job of avoiding the obvious, I'll admit.

It's illogical, and I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that your 'evidence' does not support your point.

Ok dude... do you see a trend here. All you did was say that I was wrong. You gave me NO evidence to the contrary and you even called me a liar when I lied about nothing. Everything that I had to say you said "so what?" If you want to even beging to refute what I have to say, you have to show me evidence CONTRARY to every event that I described, which you did not do. I knew that if I did present an argument, somebody would come along and do just this. Make blanket remarks that claim otherwise without giving evidence. I supplied my evidence, now supply your evidence that is contrary to it...otherwise you haven't even began to refute or touch my argument.

Clete · 06-05-2006, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZikZak

Moby Dick was written by Ishmael, an eyewitness to all of the events described. Better than the Gospels, it's even written in the first person. Therefore, Moby Dick is at least fairly accurate and we can say that the White Whale actually existed.

Plus, both New Bedford and the Atlantic Ocean are real places. Therefore Moby Dick is an accurate representation of real historical events.

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

06-05-2006, 02:40 PM	#183
xaxxat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Space Station 33 Posts: 2,543	one allegiance is going to post some evidence, from those original texts he has access to...

06-05-2006, 02:42 PM	#184
RGD Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The House of Reeds Posts: 4,245	Somehow I suspect that one allegiance is going to get creamed in this forum. If I ate popcorn, I'd pop some and watch.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.