Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 07-26-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
The NT accounts are mostly all written within a decade or two of the events, but certainly within the same generation, and even though there may be small differences such as chronology between the accounts, there is still tons more support and evidence for the history of the NT than for our ancient historical accounts. So at least use the same standards when analyzing it as you would when analyzing any other text.

I have to say I strongly disagree and the above strikes me as the kind of apologetic I'm used to seeing from less informed Xians than those that usually post here. The epistles of Paul are the earliest written documents in the NT and they are entirely unconcerned with the ministry of the earthly Jesus and mentioned virtually none of the details of his life. The first gospel is generally dated to some 30 to 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion and we have no solid physical evidence (in the form of MSS) for the NT as a whole until the 4th century.

Furthermore the notion that there is "tons more" historical support for the NT than other ancient historical documents is simply not true. For one thing there are many for which we have the autographs and for another there are numerous documents from antiquity that are multiply attested outside their own corpus and stream of tradition. The NT is not. This is not an atheological rant, but the simple fact of the matter. In fact my nonbelief does not come from this perspective on the bible, because I accepted that long before I deconverted.

Beach_MU · 07-26-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:


The first gospel is generally dated to some 30 to 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion and we have no solid physical evidence (in the form of MSS) for the NT as a whole until the 4th century.

Furthermore the notion that there is "tons more" historical support for the NT than other ancient historical documents is simply not true. For one thing there are many for which we have the autographs and for another there are numerous documents from antiquity that are multiply attested outside their own corpus and stream of tradition. The NT is not. In fact my nonbelief does not come from this perspective on the bible, because I accepted that long before I deconverted.

Regardless of when the first gospel is dated (which is generally disputed anyway) the events are still written about much sooner than much of the ancient history. I agree there is a lot of support for some ancient texts, but still much of ancient history is traced back to one person's account that was written long after the events, much longer than several decades. I'm not sure when the first complete NT was found, but I do know that we have pieces for much of the NT from before that date in the form of fragments of letters, sermons, etc, so the fact that a complete text isn't found until the 4th century doesn't mean that it wasn't written until then. I think they simply weren't all compiled into one place until then (the reason eludes me at the moment, but it had something to do with the literary style of the time. I can look it up if it's really an issue). And there are many texts that are outside the Bible and a lot of archeological evidence that supports the events of the NT. (Now obviously there isn't archeological evidence for Jesus walking on water or other miracles, but rather of places which is all you can expect from archeology)

Regarding your last statement, I would be curious to hear where your unbelief does stem from. (Not to try and convert you, but simply out of curiosity)

CX · 07-26-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
I'm not sure when the first complete NT was found

The first complete MSS of the NT is

written in the 4th century. There are 7 epistles that are not attested at all prior to this. The earliest fragment is p52 which contains only a handful of partial verses of GJn. Prior to 200 C.E. we have only 3 or perhaps 4 MSS all of which are extremely fragmentary and account for only about .02 % of the canon as a whole (22 verses out of 7955) around the turn of the 2nd/3rd Century C.E. we have perhaps 3 more. There is no complete text of any Gospel prior to

and with the exception of GJn the gospel MSS we have from the earlier period are generally very fragmentary attesting perhaps 25% of a given text or less. 85-90% of all MSS we have are from the 9th century or later.

Quote:

the fact that a complete text isn't found until the 4th century doesn't mean that it wasn't written until then.

And certainly no one is asserting that. The existence of MSS fragments sets the terminus ad quem for most of the NT much earlier. The point is we have insufficient evidence for reliably drawing conclusions about what the NT said prior to the advent of Church hegemony in the Western world at which point we cannot but think there was already significant doctrinal and theological development.

Quote:

And there are many texts that are outside the Bible and a lot of archeological evidence that supports the events of the NT.

Such as? There is no archeaological evidence of any kind for any of the significant events of the NT outside geographic and sociopolitcal information which is not in dispute. I do not find it remotely doubtful that an itinerant Jewish radical was executed by the Romans during the Procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. On the other hand I do find it extremely dubious that the sun was darkened for several hours and the dead started wandering all over the place and yet we find precisely 0 accounts of such a fantastic event outside the NT. As far as Jesus himself is concerned, there are, in fact, only a handful of rather dubious references to him outside the NT at all and mostly these, even if authentic, only attest to the existence of Xianity's founder (even that is in dispute) and none of the extraordinary details described by the Gospel texts.

Quote:

Regarding your last statement, I would be curious to hear where your unbelief does stem from. (Not to try and convert you, but simply out of curiosity)

Hmmm...I'm not sure I can give a concise answer to that that wouldn't be a book length tome, but in short I'd have to say it's personal study of science, comparitive religion and ancient Near East history. In other words the complete absence of evidence for the supernatural today, plausible picture that materialism and metaphysical naturalism paint of the universe as we observe it, the veritable mountain of different, competing and mutually exclusive religious ideologies in mankind's history and the appearance of Xianity as just one more tradition among many. Granted my study of the NT serves to corrobate my conclusion, but it is not text criticism of the NT per se that causes me to lack belief in deities, the "supernatural" or specifically Xianity.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

Beach_MU · 07-26-2002, 09:02 AM

I appreciate your information. Would you mind citing the source of some of it, because I'm curious to investigate further. You bring up some interesting points that I'm not sure I completely agree with, but without further studying the issues at hand I'm not going to draw any conclusions or suggest that you are right or wrong. As far as your reason for unbelief I can respect your conclusions and opinions, though I do not necessarily agree with all of them. I don't think our minds will ever grasp all the truths and knowledge that exists and as such I don't prescribe to the "If I can't see it, it isn't real" philosophy relating to the supernatural because everyday science is changing and discovering new things that weren't known the day before. Likewise there are many things that are true and accepted that can't fully be explained such as the cause of gravity. We know that it is an attraction between particles but we don't know what causes the attraction. In essense we accept gravity because we can see it's effects and personally I accept the existence of a person God because I've seen His effects in my life.

CX · 07-26-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
I appreciate your information. Would you mind citing the source of some of it, because I'm curious to investigate further. You bring up some interesting points that I'm not sure I completely agree with, but without further studying the issues at hand I'm not going to draw any conclusions or suggest that you are right or wrong.

Nearly all my information regarding Greek MSS comes from the CODICES GRAECI ET LATINI appendix in the 27th edition of Nestle & Aland's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE. In addition to being the critical Greek text for the NT used by most modern translators, it contains a wealth of additional information in the critical apparatus and appendices. Unfortunately, it is not terribly useful if one does not have at least a rudimentary understanding of Koine Greek. I imagine, though I have not read it yet, that the Aland's The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism is a good reference for the information I've outlined here.

Quote:

As far as your reason for unbelief I can respect your conclusions and opinions, though I do not necessarily agree with all of them.

I reciprocate your respect, though I would characterize my position as one of nonbelief if we define unbelief as entailing any postive statements of disbelief.

Quote:

I don't think our minds will ever grasp all the truths and knowledge that exists and as such I don't prescribe to the "If I can't see it, it isn't real" philosophy relating to the supernatural because everyday science is changing and discovering new things that weren't known the day before.

I agree wholeheartedly and neither do I subscribe to such a philosophy since there are any number of things which I cannot see which I nonetheless accept as being objectively real. Science provides us only a meager approximation to the complexity of the universe and its constant revision and self-correcting nature is what makes it the best tool yet devised for discovering truth regardless of how approximate and incomplete that truth is.

Unfortunately, science continues to demonstrate the veractity of a materialistic viewpoint. At the dawn of humanity, nearly everything including rain, volcanos, eclipses etc. was attributed to some supernatural force or entity or other. As humanity increases its knowledge more and more we arrive at naturalistic conclusions about the heretofore inexplicable phenomena we are faced with every day. Poseidon doesn't make storms, Ra doesn't carry the sun across the sky on a chariot, the world wasn't created in 6 days, we aren't at the center of the universe, Utnapishtim (and for that matter Noah) didn't survive a worldwide deluge and Marduck didn't slay Tiamut to create the world and make us out of his blood and bone. At every advance in human understanding, god seems to retire further from our affairs.

Quote:

Likewise there are many things that are true and accepted that can't fully be explained such as the cause of gravity. We know that it is an attraction between particles but we don't know what causes the attraction. In essense we accept gravity because we can see it's effects and personally I accept the existence of a person God because I've seen His effects in my life.

I think the GTR describes this pretty well in that gravity is apparently a byproduct of the fact that spacetime curves in the presence of mass. As to why that should be the case, I'm not certain that's even a sensible question since it presupposes purpose or intent. If one accepts the weak antrhopic principle, we could say that if mass did not behave this way this universe would not exist as it is and consequently there would be noone here to ask insoluable questions about it. It's not much of answer, but it raises fewer additional questions than attributing anything to some supernatural entity that is apparently able to interact with the physical world, but is not measureable or detectable and is logically inconsistent.

As to your personal testimony, I certainly respect your right to feel thusly, but from the other side of the fence my experience has been that people's belief is largely a product of cultural factors, internal processes or experiences and the error-prone pattern seeking nature of the human mind. If your god actually does exist, it would be decent of him to provide objective, incontovertible evidence of his existence that does not rely on anecdotal accounts and spooky cloak and dagger style phenomena (and I mean no disrespect by that whatsoever). And certainly not to have hidden his plan for all mankind in an ancient and dubious text about a relatively minor character in ancient Palestine.

I, for one, would prefer if the universe were governed by some omnibenevolent and all-powerful supernatural entity and that my personal identity would continue on after my demise in a utopian afterlife. For one thing, there are a number of very puzzling questions I'd like the opportunity to have answered. Unfortunately, the universe gives no indication that such is the case in my experience, though I'm perfectly willing to revise that assessment.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-26-2002, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
Regardless of when the first gospel is dated (which is generally disputed anyway) the events are still written about much sooner than much of the ancient history.

If you'll pardon me for butting in, you have a curiously wavering sense of standards here, Beach.

Is it your contention that writing style makes no difference to the veracity of the events depicted in the NT?

An historical document of factual events ceases to be an historical document of factual events the second the alleged factual events contradict one another or do not take place in the actual chronological order, so when you argue that the synoptics, for example, weren't meant to be "historical documents" you are ipso facto affirming fiction.

Either an account lists factual events as they happened (in which case you are talking about a factual account of historical accuracy), or they do not (in which case you are talking about mythology, aka, fiction).

The minute you state that an author is not placing events in their actual chronological, historical order is the minute you affirm mythology.

Remember, too, that Mark is the author who created the passion narrative and acts as the basis for Matthew and Luke, so we do not have "three witnesses to the same event;" we have, at best, one possible witness and, at worst, no witnesses to the same event.

Here's a lengthy, but salient section regarding the question of Mark's Gospel being based on an eyewitness account from <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm" target="_blank">this website</a>:

Quote:

Was Mark's Gospel based on an eyewitness?

This has always been the traditional Christian view. Eusebius, writing in the 4th century, quotes Papias, writing in the 2nd century as saying "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order." So it seems that the evidence that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's witness is a quote centuries later, of a lost work, by someone who gives no arguments or explanation as to why we should assume that he was correct.

But was he correct? Was the author of Mark's Gospel a companion of Peter and therefore either an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine, or at least someone who had a good knowledge of Aramaic and Judaism and Palestine?

Mark was not by Mark!

To determine that, it is necessary to look very closely at how Luke and especially Matthew used Mark's Gospel. Time and time again, we see Matthew correcting Mark's blunders about Judaism. Clearly Matthew was a Jew and Mark, despite Papias' bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church. [*] Comparing Matthew 15:4 with Mark 7:10, Mark represents a more Gentile attitude in quoting the Old Testament as "Moses said" rather than "God said." Matthew, a Jew, would never have attributed the 10 commandments to Moses. It was God who said them, as all Jews will tell you. Naturally, there are many places in the first five books of the Bible which have 'And God said', but which are referred to by Jews as the Books of Moses, but the Ten Commandments are a different case from the rest of the Pentatuech and attributed directly to God.[*] Mark 5:22: "One of the rulers of the synagogue." Diaspora synagogues may sometimes have had more than ruler, as at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15), but Palestinian synagogues normally had only one. Matthew 9:18, drops this phrase.[*] Mark 14:12: On the first day of unleavened bread when they sacrificed the Passover , confuses Nisan 15 with Nisan 14. Naturally, Matthew 26:17 drops the phrase "when they sacrificed the Passover". Was Mark a Jew who did not know about the Passover?[*] Mark 14:13 says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Matthew 26:18 drops the idea that a Jewish man would do a woman's work.[*] Mark 15:42, "When evening was already come, because it was Friday (paraskeue) that is, the day before the sabbath ..." . This means "either that Friday began with that sunset, and Jesus had died on Thursday; or else, the evangelist forgot [or did not know] that the Jewish day began at evening." Matthew 27:57-62 clarifies Mark's confusion over Jewish days. Interestingly, the NIV tries to translate the problem away by writing for Mark 15:42 'So as evening approached ", rather than "And when evening had come ", as the RSV has it.[*] Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen cloth." Matthew drops the idea of a Jew buying something on the Sabbath. No Jew could have made that mistake.[*] Mark 1:2 wrongly ascribes Malachi 3:1 to Isaiah. Matthew 3:3 corrects this[*] In Mark 2:7 the teachers of the law complain that Jesus is forgiving sins and say 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?'. Jews did not think that. Matthew 9:3 drops the phrase. There is a Dead Sea Scroll called 'The Prayer of Nabonidus'(4Q242) , written and copied by Jews, where it is said by Nabonidus '... an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew...'.
Jews did believe that God could give authority to men to forgive sin.[*] Mark 2:26 - Abiathar should be Ahimelech.Matthew 12:1-8 does not repeat the mistake. Incidentally, if Jesus was thinking of 1 Sam. 21:1-8 when he said that David and those who were with him were hungry, then , in his omniscience, he forgot that David was on the run alone and the story that David told Ahimelech was a falsehood - David was not on a mission from the king and he did not have an appointment with any young men.[*] Mark 10:19 misquotes the Ten Commandments and inserts an extra commandment: "Do not defraud." Matthew 19:18-20 sticks to the orginal 10, plus the one that many Rabbis regarded as a summary of the commandments.[*] Mark 15:34 has Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic (Eloi). Had Jesus done this, bystanders could hardly have supposed that he was calling for Elijah. Jesus must have used Hebrew Eli, as at Matthew 27:46. The NIV tries to harmonize Matthew and Mark here by using Eloi in both places.

More dubious statements by a "Companion of Peter"[*] Mark 7:31 says that Jesus and his disciples journeyed "out from the borders of Tyre ... through Sidon, to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders". The journey described is like "travelling from Cornwall to London by way of Manchester" (Anderson, H. _The Gospel of Mark_, NCB (London, 1976).[*] Mark 8:10 refers to the "the district of Dalmanutha." As far as is known, there was no such place in Galilee. (The difficulty was recognized early because there are many textual variants in the manuscripts.)[*] Mark 5:1 specifies that the eastern side of the lake of Galilee is the country of the Gerasenes. This is more than 30 miles from a lake. This caused a lot of confusion as can by seen by the variety of names in the texts here. Matthew changed Mark's Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Matthew 8:28. Gadara was a well-known spa only eight miles from the lake.[*] Mark 6:14-27 repeatedly refers to Herod Antipas as a "king." Matthew commits this error only once (14:9). The correct title 'tetrarch' appears in Matthew 14:1, Luke 3:19, Luke 9:7, Acts 13:1, but not once in Mark's Gospel[*] Mark 6:17 says that Antipas married the wife of his brother Philip. According to Josephus, Antiquities. 18.5.4, she was actually the wife of a different brother.

Places where Matthew adds Jewish elements which 'Mark' overlooked[*] Mark 13:17-19 fails to urge Jesus' followers to pray that they do not have to flee on the sabbath (compare Matthew. 24:20).[*] Mark 2:23-28 lacks the appeal to the Mosaic Law found in Matthew 12:5.[*] Mark 7:19b, a comment by the evangelist, asserts that Jesus "declared all foods clean." Matthew 15:20 drops this. It is inconceivable that Jesus would have abolished the food laws without his opponents ever once mentioning that in accusations.[*] Mark 9:4 names Elijah before Moses. Naturally, Matthew 17:3 puts Moses before Elijah, as Moses is far more important to Jews than Elijah.[*] Mark 11:10 refers to the kingdom our father David. No Jew would have referred to our father David. The father of the nation was Abraham, or possibly Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Not all Jews were sons of David. Naturally, Matthew 21:9 does not refer to our father David.[*] Mark 12:31,33,34 subordinate the Torah to love, and to the kingdom, in contrast to Matt. 22:36-40, who as a Jew, put a far greater emphasis on the Law.

Mark has to explain Jewish features.

Mark never explains Gentile matters, such as who Pilate was. However, he assumes that his intended readers know even less about Judaism than he does and he has to explain the most elementary features. By contrast, Matthew makes more use of Judaism and assumes his readers are up to speed.

Was Mark really a Jewish companion of Peter, or someone who was very close to the earliest, Jewish , followers of Jesus? [*] Only Mark 12:42 explains that a lepton, a coin used in Palestine, was worth half a quadrans. Further more, "quadrans" is a word borrowed from Latin.[*] Mark 10:12 forbids women to divorce their husbands and remarry. But Jewish law already forbade that! The teaching would have seemed outlandish to a Jew of Palestine, but was an appropriate expansion for those of pagan background.[*] At Mark 3:17 and Mark 10:46, he has to explain the most elementary meanings of Aramaic surnames. This is supposedly from somebody to whom Aramaic was a mother tongue. Even if Mark is just explaining things to his readers, it is clear that his readers , being ignorant of elementary Aramaic and even the currency of Palestine, would have been in no position to check out any of the things that he wrote.[*] Mark 6:48 uses 'the fourth watch'. The Jews divided the night into three watches. The Romans divided the night into four watches, according to the conservative 'New Bible Dictionary'.

This is still more evidence that Mark's Gospel was written for people who would have been familiar with Roman and not Jewish customs, and so would have found it hard to check the Gospel stories.

Mark as a a companion and friend of Peter. [*] Mark never acknowledges Peter's authority. Contrast Matthew 16:17-20, Luke 22:28-32, John 21:15-17.

There is nothing in Mark which a well educated Roman Gentile would not have known. For example, when Mark 15:38 talks about the curtain of the Temple, Roman Gentiles would have known that the Temple had a curtain, as it was taken to Rome after Jerusalem was sacked (Book 7, Chapter 5 in 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus).

Contradictions and problems in Mark's stories [*] Mark 4:11 says that the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to the disciples. What was this secret? When was it given to the disciples, who seem totally ignorant of who Jesus was (Mark 4:41)?[*] In Mark 6:7-13 till 29-30 the disciples are sent out to preach and teach. As the disciples did not know Jesus was the Messiah until Mark 8:30, that must have been interesing!

Peter - Repent of your sins, and follow Jesus of Nazareth.

Bystander in the crowd - Is he the Messiah who will rid us of the cursed Roman occupation?

Peter - I never thought to ask him. I don't know. I'll ask him when I see him again, and get back to you.

What could the disciples have preached and taught in Mark 6 that had anything to do with the secret of the kingdom of God? Why send people out to teach without explaining that you are the Messiah?

They were also given power over evil spirits, but it is not until Mark 9:29 that Jesus explains that they have to pray first before driving out a demon. How did the disciples drive out demons before that, when Jesus had neglected to give them such basic instruction as to pray first?

Mark 7:14 gives some instruction about the Law which a simpleton could grasp, yet Jesus tells the disciples in verse 18 that they are without understanding. These are the preacher-teachers who had been given the secret of the kingdom of God.

Despite not being able to understand, and not knowing, elementary instruction about the Law, they had already by chapter 3 had liberal practices on fasting and the Sabbath,and the whole teaching of chapter 7 (which the disciples did not understand) was caused by a question about the practices of those same disciples!

Don't forget that these preacher-teachers , who had been given the secret of the Kingdom of God in 4:11, had had their hearts hardened in 6:52, so that they did not understand even such a blatant miracle as walking on water.

Why give the disciples the secret of the kingdom of God and then harden their hearts so that they don't understand it?

Surely the average Christian would fall about laughing if he read such stories in the Book of Mormon or the Qu'ran.

Fascinating stuff, what?

Quote:

Beach: I agree there is a lot of support for some ancient texts, but still much of ancient history is traced back to one person's account that was written long after the events, much longer than several decades. I'm not sure when the first complete NT was found, but I do know that we have pieces for much of the NT from before that date in the form of fragments of letters, sermons, etc, so the fact that a complete text isn't found until the 4th century doesn't mean that it wasn't written until then.

It doesn't matter when myths are written; they're still works of fiction.

Quote:

MORE: I think they simply weren't all compiled into one place until then (the reason eludes me at the moment, but it had something to do with the literary style of the time. I can look it up if it's really an issue).

They weren't compiled until then because there was strong debate over which books affirmed the authoritarian hierarchy of the Catholic order and which did not and would therefore be discarded as heretical.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is allegedly the oldest gospel and it was thrown out because it depicts a Jesus stating that man did not need anyone as a "go between," including himself.

In other words, one of the first gospels has Jesus arguably as a man inspired by God teaching everyone that God is within you all and no one need serve as God's conduit, aka, Messiah; that God offered a direct, one-to-one line.

Of course, if one adopted this gospel of Jesus, then one would ipso facto have to throw away every single thing about Catholocism, apostalic authority and Jesus as God!

So, out it went, because it didn't conform to the doctrinal desires of the cult.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, allegedly held GThomas in high regard.

If you're interested, I highly recommend Elaine Pagels excellent book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679724532/qid=1027706845/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8341522-0876911" target="_blank">Gnostic Gospels</a>.

Quote:

MORE: And there are many texts that are outside the Bible and a lot of archeological evidence that supports the events of the NT. (Now obviously there isn't archeological evidence for Jesus walking on water or other miracles, but rather of places which is all you can expect from archeology)

Right, which means archeology is utterly worthless toward any claims of supernatural events and offers no proof at all toward any arguments regarding the Bible, other than proof that the authors of the mythologies used actual cities and towns as their settings.

Which, by the way, would make Stephen King a Prophet, too.

Quote:

Beach: Regarding your last statement, I would be curious to hear where your unbelief does stem from. (Not to try and convert you, but simply out of curiosity)

Since this wasn't directed at me and I've merely butted in, I won't comment, other than to say my lack of belief comes from reading the Bible.

Beach_MU · 07-26-2002, 10:43 AM

Hmmm... Where to start? I'm not going to respond to everything you've stated simply in the interest of simplicity and time. If any one point is still an incredible problem I'd love to discuss it, but I prefer to handle things one at a time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
[QB]

An historical document of factual events ceases to be an historical document of factual events the second the alleged factual events contradict one another or do not take place in the actual chronological order, so when you argue that the synoptics, for example, weren't meant to be "historical documents" you are ipso facto affirming fiction.

QB]

To this I would I have to reply that first off just because something isn't written in chronological order doesn't make it fiction. In fact if you use your definition for history then most of our history books are probably more fiction than history since history is always written through the perspective of one side, thus omitting key events that aren't considered important. And I would also have to reiterate that you shouldn't analyze the Bible using today's standards for writing history. During the time in which they were written it was the common practice to focus on certain events while omitting others. So I think declaring the Bible a myth is jumping to conclusions based on incorrect standards.

As far as the Gospel of Thomas is concerned, I don't know if you've read it, but I have, and the reason it was discarded is not because it contradicted other books but it blatantly contradicted itself and was much of it is little more than nonsense. I challenge you to read it yourself and draw a different conclusion by any standards.

And lastly, while the name of the author of several of the books of the Bible is in question it doesn't change what is written in the books. Also I don't at all agree with the idea that Mark is the sole basis for the other gospels since there are many details in the other gospels that are not found in Mark.

As far as butting in, feel free. This is a forum.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-26-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
Hmmm... Where to start? I'm not going to respond to everything you've stated simply in the interest of simplicity and time.

Un hunh...

Quote:

MORE: If any one point is still an incredible problem I'd love to discuss it, but I prefer to handle things one at a time.

All right, so long as you actually do handle them all one at a time and not simply pick those arguments you think you can address, conveniently ignoring all of the others you can not.

.

Quote:

MORE: To this I would I have to reply that first off just because something isn't written in chronological order doesn't make it fiction.

What does it make it then? Certainly not a reliable historical document.

Quote:

MORE: In fact if you use your definition for history then most of our history books are probably more fiction than history since history is always written through the perspective of one side, thus omitting key events that aren't considered important.

That isn't the argument being presented. No one is talking about "key events" being omitted; we're talking about key events contradicting one another.

I can think of no history book, for example, that places, say, VJ day before VE day, can you?

And if one did, what then would you conclude about the reliability of that history book, from a perspective of historical document?

And since that hypothetical history book got the order of VE day and VJ day wrong, what would you conclude about the reliability of any other alleged facts contained therein?

I have heard it said so many times that the Bible never claims to be an historical document in the exact same breath that people claim the events in the Bible actually happened as described.

You can't have it both ways. Either it is an historical document and everything that happened, happened factually or it is not an historical document and therefore nothing that is written in it can be accepted as being reliable, just as you would never accept a history book as reliable that got the order of when the various theatres of World War II came to an end (as far as Americans were concerned).

That is a patently ludicrous stance that any honest student of history would immediatly confirm by checking to see if there are other such discrepencies in the accounts.

But christians don't do that. Christians apply a magical standard to their mythologies and say, "While you're right in the case of a history book, we would certainly throw it out as being unreliable after getting such a basic and easily verifiable fact wrong about the order of extremely important historical events, when it comes to the factual existence of God on earth, we just don't care whether or not anything about it follows even the most basic rules of historical documents. Get something so blatantly wrong about World War II and we'd trash the whole book without a second's hesitation; get something wrong about our God and we will spend centuries figuring out a complex series of apologetic loopholes to get around it."

Yes?

Quote:

MORE: And I would also have to reiterate that you shouldn't analyze the Bible using today's standards for writing history.

Speak of the devil.

Look, either something is an historically accurate depiction of factual events or it is not.

What do you call a work that is not an historically accurate depiction of factual events?

You either call it "trash" and file it away appropriately, or you call it mythology; aka, fiction.

It doesn't matter if that fiction--like Stephen King's--is either set in real towns or based on real people, neither of those things matter to the claims of the authors regarding the literary license they are employing; the "style" you are alluding to.

Quote:

MORE: During the time in which they were written it was the common practice to focus on certain events while omitting others.

We aren't talking about focusing on certain events while omitting others, we're talking about an event contradicting another; we're talking about an author who is allegedly chronicling factual events that actually happened incorrectly, contradicting another author who is also allegedly chronicling factual events that actually happened.

At the very least, that means that one of them is wrong; not that one of them is "mistaken," flat out wrong.

And by the way, the name for the "style" you keep alluding to is called mythology.

Quote:

MORE: So I think declaring the Bible a myth is jumping to conclusions based on incorrect standards.

Yes, your own.

Quote:

MORE: As far as the Gospel of Thomas is concerned, I don't know if you've read it,

I have, which is where my arguments come from.

Quote:

MORE: but I have, and the reason it was discarded is not because it contradicted other books but it blatantly contradicted itself and was much of it is little more than nonsense.

Again, you are incorrect.

Quote:

MORE: I challenge you to read it yourself and draw a different conclusion by any standards.

I already have read it and obviously did draw a different conclusion (as did Elaine Pagels).

Quote:

MORE: And lastly, while the name of the author of several of the books of the Bible is in question it doesn't change what is written in the books.

Since I never made that argument and it serves no purpose to anything I wrote, I will simply grant this.

Quote:

MORE: Also I don't at all agree with the idea that Mark is the sole basis for the other gospels since there are many details in the other gospels that are not found in Mark.

Your "agreement" is obviously irrelevant. The only thing that matters is your counter-argumentation, and on this one, you would be going against the vast majority of christian biblical scholars, not me, so by all means, be my guest.

Quote:

MORE: As far as butting in, feel free. This is a forum.

Much obliged.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

CX · 07-26-2002, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
What does it make it then? Certainly not a reliable historical document.

Historical drama. AMk was millenia ahead of Oliver Stone. You take a real story and add stuff to it to make it play better with an audience. So it's not exactly fiction, but it's not exactly history either. The fun part starts when you try to feather out the history from the myth. That's what this forum is all about, yes?

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-26-2002, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
AMk was millenia ahead of Oliver Stone. You take a real story and add stuff to it to make it play better with an audience. So it's not exactly fiction, but it's not exactly history either. The fun part starts when you try to feather out the history from the myth. That's what this forum is all about, yes?

And since the book in question contains the contradictions in question and is the only source of the alleged events in question, how would it ever be possible to ever determine which event is history and which is mythology?

The plot thickens....to opacity...

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

07-26-2002, 09:02 AM	#54
Beach_MU Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 71	I appreciate your information. Would you mind citing the source of some of it, because I'm curious to investigate further. You bring up some interesting points that I'm not sure I completely agree with, but without further studying the issues at hand I'm not going to draw any conclusions or suggest that you are right or wrong. As far as your reason for unbelief I can respect your conclusions and opinions, though I do not necessarily agree with all of them. I don't think our minds will ever grasp all the truths and knowledge that exists and as such I don't prescribe to the "If I can't see it, it isn't real" philosophy relating to the supernatural because everyday science is changing and discovering new things that weren't known the day before. Likewise there are many things that are true and accepted that can't fully be explained such as the cause of gravity. We know that it is an attraction between particles but we don't know what causes the attraction. In essense we accept gravity because we can see it's effects and personally I accept the existence of a person God because I've seen His effects in my life.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.