Butters

What is false about that statement. I have had many long and involved discussions with Christians who have attempted to show the reliability of the N.T., by showing how soon it was coppied down. By claiming that the Church florished under the leadership of the disciples, and Paul. Although Paul never met Jesus, he met Peter, and many other early followers. The men that wrote these books and decided on the canon, were inspired and led by God. The fist gospels were written very soon after Jesus' death, and transmitted to us through the continued line of the church. There should be no disagreement among Christians as to what it says.
But they still can't agree on what it says or what it means! Turn on the T.V. for gods sake! At any one time you will find several preaching the "Truth", while claiming that other Christians don't know what the "truth" is, they don't know how to read the Bible.


Why should I study "older" MS. The church has preached the same message for two thousand years, has It not? What gives you the right to change that word now? What makes you know more about the Bible than Jerry Falwell, or the Pope?
Or as one good fundy was quoted, "The KJV was good enough for the apostles, its good enough for me!"

As for the geneologies of Jesus, what is lazy about reading the books as they are written?
Christians always say you should read the Bible.
Well I read it. It gives two contradictory accounts of the genology of Jesus.

As to a theory as to why? Yes I have one, and it goes to the heart of many biblical contradictions.
WE were never supposed to read the Bible. It was only supposed to be read by the priesthood. The Bible can be used to support anything.

Yes I have read MANY Christian commentaries on this. I find them all Far fetched, absurd, attempts to reconcile to totally different accounts. While I did not approach the Bible to disprove it, I found it in error, and the attempts to explain those errors only believable by someone that ALREADY believes it, and won't use comman sense or intellectual honesty when examining them.

I notice that someone else posted the question of the geneologies here, and you did not respond.


Let me see, is it more adsurd to think that out of all the religions invented since time begain, that Christianity is "True", or to accept it is just another one.

Is it more abusrd to believe that Judas Hanged himself, and one writer just left that out, or more absurd to believe that this same book is a good historical work?

I agree with FM, If you squint your eyes just right, and stare closly enough to a tree, it dosn't really look like a tree anymore, and you damn sure can't see the forest!

I don't give a damn about new translations of the Bible, if they are made, it only proves that the church has been preaching the wrong thing for two thousand years.

If you think I'm being lazy, please post your answer to "The mother of NT contradictions" Posted by Biadarka, I see that not one Christian answered it.

You could also answer my post about Isaiah.

As for this post, the conclusion is.

IF Judas did hang himself, and it was not recorded in Acts, then Acts alone would give us a false version of the truth. As it was written as a seperate book, written to stand alone, we must therefore disregard any thing written there as Proven true, it must all be suspect.

So take your pick, either the Bible contradictd itself, or is incomplete enough to give a false picture.

Butters

And lets don't forget that they were common until they could be examined by scientific methods.

And any that occur today and are invesigated are shown to be hoaxes.

Did God go away when science started looking at him? Or did science look around, and find no evidence of God?

Radorth

Excuse me. When Nogo found one i had no reasonable explanation for, I acknowledged it. Meanwhile when Vanderzyden pointed out that "fell headlong" etc was not in older Greeks ms, did any skeptic say "oops, maybe somebody messed with the text."? No. But if you want to argue the Bible is false you are quick to point out any evidence you can find that the text was messed with. Yes, I call that lazy and dishonest.

I suppose non Christians who take the NT as basically factual, and only aregue against the resurrection are squinting "just right" as well? e.g., are the swoon theorists not asserting that all but the resurrection cannot be so easily discounted, or honestly disproven without picking nits, and that the NT writers were simply mistaken about whether Jesus truly rose from the dead?

Other religions have nothing to do with it. Each must be judged by its own merits, which is why so many historians believe the Gospels are essentially true, and the record of Muhammed's doings while they easily discount pagan myths. At least they are willing to take a stab at what is true and what is not instead of just throwing in the intellectual towel and inventing incredible and cynical theories of how the Bible came to be written.

Rad

Family Man

Thank you Radoth. Coming from a guy whose avowed purpose here is to "mock atheists" I consider that a compliment and proof positive the point was driven home.

Gee, a few posts ago you were arguing that all four accounts were right. You can't even keep your arguments straight and you call me cynical?

Right. They are fiction too, especially since Lincoln never regained consciousness after being shot. So your point is?

Gee, no kidding. They put words in the guy's mouth. That's a pretty terrible job indeed. Are trying to help me make my case here?

Family Man

Leonarde, you are misreading what Asimov is saying. You should have also emboldened this:

Asimov's point isn't that the Bible is a history book where everything is mentioned is true (otherwise why is the existence of Nimrod or the Queen of Sheba doubtful?) He's saying that it has been considered a history book by many. And if you'd read more carefully, you'd realize he's arguing that much in the Bible is quite obscure. As a history book, it certainly misses the highlights.

You're also misreading me: I'm not arguing that there is no history in the NT. I'm arguing is much of it is fiction. And if you want a war of scholars, I can offer E.P. Sanders, who stated quite bluntly that the early Christians made up much of the story of Jesus. Or I can offer up the 100 or so scholars of the Jesus Seminars, who attributed only a small portion of the gospels stories to Jesus. Or I can offer up Randall Helms, who wrote an entire book about the fictions in the NT. I can even offer up these quotes from Stephen Harris's Understanding the Bible, a standard college text:

And:

And:

In other words, they were writing theology, not history.

I'm not a crackpot with a theory. The notion that the NT is not primarily history is well-established in the scholarly community and I can draw on a lot of resources to drive my point home. Your misinterpretation of one science writer dabbling in biblical interpretation (however entertaining, for I have read his book) is well outweighed by the professionals I can appeal to.

leonarde

Posted by Family Man: Again, to you it is any either/or proposition. To
me, and to Asimov (the full introduction that I
was quoting from makes it clear that he thought the Bible a very good source of history
indeed)there's no need to choose; a person
can relate historical events and interpret those
events in terms of the theological stance that that person has: the theology of Saint Paul was not exactly that of the author of James'
Epistle, the theological emphasis of Matthew's Gospel is different from that of John's. But when it comes to the events of the early Christian Church and the life of Jesus, the NT works are the best source we have and the best source we are ever likely to have.

Cheers!

Family Man

No, you're the one saying it must be a history book or not. I'm saying it is a theological document where history can be discovered if examined carefully. That's hardly either/or.

And I showed you hundreds of scholars who disagreed. So? And I showed you how you were misinterpreting what Asimov was saying. Do you think he made a mistake when he said the existence of the Queen of Sheba was doubtful and the "history" presented was obscure indeed? I've read his book, Leonarde. Your interpretation is of an overly simplistic either/or type.

Agreed.

The best source, yes. A good source, no. And that opinion is backed up by the research of hundreds of NT scholars, and not a single misinterpreted science writer.

Butters

Posted by Radorth,
Wow, I can't believe I missed it. Where was this exchange with Nogo, if it was in this thread, I can't find it. But if so, I applaud you. I also answered nothing about "headlong" of any other explaination of a hung body falling. It's not relevent.

If older Greek MS are different than new versions, this is nothing more than what I already know, and a good reason not to treat any "Version" as the word of God.

Well, I'd wager that Most Non-Christians that believe in the NT as basically factual, have never heard an argument from the other side.
If you would like to name a few scholars that fit this bill, I would be interested in how they came to their conclusions.

And just what are these merits, and how are they judged?
And I am sure a large majority of Christian Historians discount Muhammads miracles.

Ion

Asimov aside, I like this better:
"Man is the only animal that has the true religion -several of them.".
That's from Mark Twain, more than 100 years ago.
About this, Robert Ingersoll wrote:
"Our ignorance is God, what we know is science.".

To my observation, this sounds about right.

Baidarka

Rad:
R-“Claiming the two geneologies of Jesus are contradictory is like asking us to make the laziest possible intellectual assumption,”

B-“Lazy” because I won’t accept the convoluted insults to reason that apologists use in place of logic.

R- “that at least one is made up out of thin air."

B- That right!

R- "And does he who claims a contradiction even proffer a theory as to how NT writers, or future redactors, could be such nits? Does he consider the implications of such an assertion at all, which boils down to an accusation of lying? Does he even say whether he thinks the writer was a nit or a liar?”

B- Yes, either nits or liars. I think that we’re finally getting somewhere!

Baidarka