Gooch's dad

As Mageth pointed out, we don't *have* the original writings. The ones we do have seem to have all the tremendous contradictions, errors, and obvious "fit-to-prophecy" nonsense that I've mentioned.

And Magus, this thread is all about whether those prophecies are actually there in the bible. You're assuming the prophecies to be true, while we're debating the prophecies. Can you say "begging the question"?

Doctor X

We have been over this again and again.

As I noted, Magus runs away from a debate, comes back in a week, and pretends not to have learned anything. Amnesia?

They wrote accounts inconsistent with one another. Lk and Mt clearly rewrite Mk. They screw up the geography. They misrepresent reality--position of the Romans, influence of the Jews, festivals, et cetera.

Ipse dixit and absolutely incorrect.

We have Napoleon's body, clothes, writings, Columbus' manuscripts, paintings, different accounts of Cleopatra which, Heavens to Betsy, correspond unlike the NT stories.

Which tells one nothing, nothing about what Junior said or did.

This has been explained to Magus over and over again.

If he dislikes the finding of scholarship, he would do well to read it, and argue against it. He does not want to do that, because he cannot handle the fact that scholarship, history, archaeology, science and, yes, modern theologians have cast aside his narrow perspective a long time ago.

--J.D.

Amlodhi

Actually, people back then were likely pretty much like people are now. The fact of less widely available written documentation simply facilitated elaboration for the ancients.

Even today, we need only look around to see examples of this type of elaboration.

For instance, a religious man (to some, a holy man) claimed to have found an Egyptian chariot wheel in the gulf of Aqaba. Most of us know that this report originated from a man named Ron Wyatt whose extravagant claims are dubious (to put it kindly). But, nevertheless, here we have an "eyewitness" testimony believed by many.

Only a few weeks ago, on another forum, I read a dissertation from one of the faithful expounding the fact that Egyptian chariots and armament had been discovered beneath the Red Sea. Further, it was told that the bodily remains of the Egyptian soldiers were often found still in their chariots. The claim stopped just short of asserting that they had found the chariot ensconced body of the Pharaoh of the exodus himself.

Edited to add: (News Bulletin. I have just been informed by another poster (Christ) that we have already added the next layer of elaboration. Now it is being reported that:

We have found the body of the Pharoah beneath the Red Sea . . .

The provided link is:

http://www.thelastfreecity.com/zions...threadid=15401

Well, that didn't take long. Go figure.)

End edit.

Now these types of elaborations are readily believed by the hungry faithful even though no less a personage than Wyatt's own son has testified that Mr. Wyatt planted a single (and I believe, non-Egyptian) chariot wheel in the gulf of Aqaba so that he could photograph it.

Thus, even today, we have a man who throws an inauthentic chariot wheel into the gulf of Aqaba and photographs it. We have no less an insider than his own son saying, "I was there, the story being told today isn't true." Unlike the ancients, we even have easily available means of widely distributing debunking information.

And yet, in less than a decade , we have gone from a man throwing a chariot wheel into the gulf to having one of the faithful report that:

Holy man Ron Wyatt, himself an eyewitness to these events and knowing of a surety that they be true has passed on to us this testimony that many of Pharaoh's army, along with their chariots and vestitures and armaments, lie beneath the waters of the Red Sea, precisely where we are told God caused them to be innundated.

Now we need only be in an age where this faithful one would pick up a pen or otherwise dictate the received testimony of this "eyewitness" to a scribe, and we have a clear picture of how the gospel stories likely evolved.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Don Alhambra

Point of information.*

In neuropsychology, in left-neglect patients for example, when the right hemisphere of the brain has been damaged, patients have trouble seeing the left side of objects. They will draw clocks wiith all the numbers on one side, and draw only the right side of objects.

What is more interesting is that such patients will strenuously deny that they have a problem with the left hand side of objects. I saw this recently with a patient I worked with who continuously complains of probems with his eyes when it has been explained to him over and over again that the problems are with his visual system. He keeps going to the optician only to be told that his eyes are perfect, and can't seem to understand that the trouble is in his brain.

My point is that the ability not to comprehend something because you are *certain* that something else is true may be an inherent human tendency. Perhaps that is the issue here and in similar cases. Just a thought.

*I have to stop doing this...

Infidelettante

Good God man! That's the answer to everything! Different time, different culture. Everything is true. No one is wrong. Everyone is right.

Oh, too bad.

JT

Doctor X

Don Alhambra:

Indeed. My favorite is alexia without agraphia where the person is able to write but cannot read even what he writes.

Wait. . . .

--J.D.

martinc

First of all let me say I do not believe one can scientifically prove the existence of God or that Jesus was his son. Ultimately that is something left to the realm of faith,for we who believe are told by our ancient scrolls that faith is a gift of God that can not be drummed up.Being a scriptural Universalist, a particular type of Christian who believes that ALL will be saved I must say that I don't worry about pagans or infidels or whatever one wants to call non believers because I know God will eventually convert them in his own time. (1 Tim 4:9-10) Now about the idea that I put forth to Gabe Chesster and he posted as MARTIN (which was a fraud because I am Martin and even tho the post was accurate it was an email from me to him and he fraudulantly posted it as MARTIN ..anyway I think he is going by the name THE EVIL ONE and has asked me to come debate the nonbelievers and I will if I don't get too insulted. You can learn all about what I believe at my journal website at
http://ourworld.cs.com/sheeple1/myhomepage/diary.html

Anyway the argument that greymouser made that we can not trust the gospel writers to write objectively seems to fail the logic test. I say his because their is an assumption being made that because the writers of scriptures were followers of Jesus they therefore conspired many decades apart to write books that would be frauds that appeared to make Jesus look like he fulfilled prophecy ,is a very problematic assumption. Using that kind of reason one could rightly conclude that Republicans who write historical works about George Bush could not be trusted to tell the truth. If we can't trust what the early Christian writers said about Jesus then who should we trust to get info on Jesus? Maybe Jospehus a Jewish historian? Being Jewish wouldnt he have a bias against Jesus fulfilling prophecy? So we are left with no one to trust for every man has an opinion and hence a bias.
It seems to me if a man was really searching objectively for the truth about this fellow Jesus he would accept the written records of ancient scrolls with at least a nuetral outlook until it could be shown scientifically that a particular writer fabricated something,then obviously one would be right to conclude that writer may not be trusted. I have not yet found a clear fabrication in the scriptures that could be verified objectively IN FACT I have countless times found science confirming Biblical stories such as ashes 4 inches deep found where Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to be or the walls of Jericho being unearthed and found to indeed have fallen outwards etc etc. Keep in mind that the scriptures are claimed to be verbally inspired by God and when the dead sea scrolls were found they were almost virtually identical to present day transcripts of the books. SO we have a book that was meticulously recorded by men who prided themselves on their integrity as Christians and yet you would have us believe that it is full of errors and lies. I think it is worth exploring both sides of this issue instead of condemning without understanding.

Martin Chretien

Llyricist

This is.....amazing

Surely you are aware that there are many republicans writing current works about George Bush that can't be trusted? That are just a little exaggerated etc...?
You are aware of that fact ...........yes?

As for Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho.... those findings, to be charitable (extremely) are somewhat lacking in evidentiary support. But I'll let the people with the references at hand de bunk them more thoroughly.

Doctor X

Martin:

Welcome to the Forums . . . mind the hounds. . . .

Oh my . . . actually no. Greymouser makes a valid point based on the evidence.

The authors of the Synoptic gospels and Jn were not "witnesses" or "followers" of Junior. Indeed, Lk of Lk-Acts admits this.

Lk and Mt use Mk as a source and rewrite him. Both Lk and Mt have birth narratives linked to historical events. Unfortunately, they are events about ten years appart! So . . . at least one of them is wrong!

A good introduction to the NT is Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?. See the Recommended Reading List.

It is not an assumption. It is based on the scholarship of the relevant passages, some of which have been quoted above.

Of course you can trust them . . . Democrates, however. . . .

Welcome to the nightmare that has kept scholars awake at night for over two hundred years.

While controversial, most, if not all, of his references are added in by someone else. However, even if valid they tell us nothing about what Junior said or did.

Unfortunately, they do not exist. All four authors have a polemic--mostly against the disciples!! Certainly, none of them wanted to be in the same book! They are far from "neutral" or "unbiased."

Most scholars conceed a resurrection is a fabrication--"dead flesh is dead flesh!"

Oh my. . . .

. . . fortunately I had my texts about on the subject of YHWH and his consort Asherah. . . .

The reference below is a great and accessible resource for what I am about to write. Also Archaeology and the Bible listed in the Recommended Reading is a great resource. I use it as the basis for a long post on why scholars have abandoned the Exodus-Conquest as historical . . . somehere in these threads. . . .

Sodom and Gomorrah:

No one . . . NO ONE . . . has located anything that suggests a city or city existed.

Jericho:

They were not. The concept of theopneustos is very late and certainly not in the NT or Synoptics and Jn. Indeed, to quote one scholar:

Eh . . . no. . . . They do demonstrate variant readings.

"Sauce for the goose, Martin. You would have to accept child sacrifice, mass murder, two competing creation myths, two contradictory and impossible Flood Myths . . . et cetera. . . .

--J.D.

References:

Finkelstein I, Silberman NA. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Laughlin JCH. Archaeology and the Bible. London: Routledge, 2000.

Ludermann G. The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

ceinwyn

Magus55

Oh I dunno Magus55, you seem to get the message loud and clear all the time. You seem to know exactly what god wants, why he wants it, and how he wants it done in every post you make.

So it puzzles me why you are still posting here, amongst us filthy unbelievers, when you could be enjoying a fulfilling career as a right wing politician.

I can see it now..."MAGUS55 IN 04..."



(ok a joke, but come on...)