Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Devilnaut · 10-26-2002, 11:57 AM

You know leonarde, actually demonstrating that it is the worst (non??)summary is a lot more effective than just saying it is.

Would it help if instead of "whacky events" I said "amazing and miraculous events"?

It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive summary. I didn't include all of what you said, because all of what you said is frankly ridiculous. Let me attempt to restate "your position":

You are claiming that because the bible contains a whole bunch of amazing and miraculous events, and that the authors implied that they actually occured, and that the bible contains historical facts about events that actually occured, we can rationally believe that everything in the bible actually occured.

Happy? Or did I leave something out...

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

leonarde · 10-26-2002, 12:01 PM

The best "proof" that your "summary" is silly is
to actually read all of my posts in their entirety in this thread. I'm confident that those who do, even if they don't agree with me will find your characterizations off the
mark....

Cheers!

Devilnaut · 10-26-2002, 12:03 PM

Sorry Leo, I edited at the last minute.

Family Man · 10-26-2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
[QB]Posted by Family Man:

1)This is a mismatching that I find very common
here: the facile comparison of a NT book with
a work of fiction which the author(s)
readily acknowledge is a work of fiction.

Scholars readily concede that much of the NT is fiction. See Randall Helms "Gospel Fictions" and E.P. Sanders' work on the historical Jesus.

Quote:

2)The "Klingons" were evidently created by the
creators of "Star Trek". There's nothing to indicate that they ever meant anyone to take the Klingons for historical entities. Aside
from a few over-the-top Trekkies, there's no indication that anyone has.

Of course not. Neither should you take the fantastic stories of the Bible seriously either.

Quote:

3)Luke's Gospel, the OTHER Gospels, and the Acts
of the Apostles are just chalkfull of extraordinary events: talking in tongues, the miraculous curing of sick people, the raising of the dead etc.

In other words, they are full of fiction. So your point was?

Quote:

4)Since these events are sewn into the very fabric
of the books, your basic stance must be that such
is ahistorical.

Bingo.

Quote:

But there's so MUCH of such non-
naturalistic stuff that there's no way for you
to claim that verse X is historical (or has an
historical base)and verse X plus 1 is an invention.

Oh, I don't know. Jesus's stupidity in getting himself executed is fairly believable. But I think there is more fiction than reality there, though I agree with you that determining what is historical and what isn't is very difficult.

Quote:

5)The first 4 verses of Luke and the last few
verses of John's G indicate that they were TRYING
to give an accurate account.

No, it indicates that they were trying to convince people they were trying to give a accurate account. However, the book starts with a nativity scene that is obviously fiction and that every scholar I've read labels as such. In other words, the account betrays Luke's real objective, which is not an accurate account.

Quote:

It is also clear that
John's account is based on an eyewitness testimony
(John's G says this).

And you believe everything you read, don't you? Raymond Brown, in his book on John, says he believes the gospel originated with the "beloved apostle", but he readily admits this is just a theory and he has no proof of this. He then says that the material was reworked several times, with material added, until we have the final product we have today. In other words, we have no way of knowing what might be legitimate eyewitness testimony and what isn't, or even if there is any eyewitness testimony. E.P. Sanders, on the other hand, declares John to be a purely theological document and worthless in determining anything about the historicity of Jesus. A very dubious assertion on your part.

So are you really asking us to swallow these supernatural whole on the sole basis that they claim to be aiming for a accurate? In spite of the fact that we have considerable evidence that they were writing a great deal of fiction?

Family Man · 10-26-2002, 06:44 PM

Actually, I feel I'm the one whose argument is being ignored. Just to remind everyone, it goes like this:

1. History is concerned with human events that we can be reasonably certain happened.

2. Supernatural events are not human events and we can't be certain they happened.

3. The evidence for this is that no supernatural event is widely considered to be historical by scholars.

4. Therefore, applying historical standards even-handedly, the supernatural events in the Bible can't be considered historical either.

So far no one, not Leonarde, or Layman, or Radoth has addressed this. I've even told them how to counter my argument: show supernatural events that are widely considered to be true in the historical record.

Come on, guys, I answer all your points. Why can't you answer mine?

Radorth · 10-26-2002, 07:49 PM

Quote:

From historian Jim Meritt's 'A List of Biblical Contradictions' I read:
.) the Gospels of Matt and Like contradict each other on the genealogy of Joseph;
.) Jesus first sermon was it in plain or mount?
.) Jesus' last words.
.) many, many more contradictions seen as internal evidence disproving the Gospels;
see

Geneology question answered. (The Gospel writers were either correct or the biggest morons ever to dupe and entire civilization and Doherty's theory of belated Gospel copying and redacting suffers yet another blow from his own fans)

I can find stuff on the web too.

Plain or mountain? It doesn't say Jesus came all the way down to the plains.

Last words. I can find stuff on the web too.

Quote:

So, do Luke 23:46 and John 19:30 contradict? I do not believe so. John recorded what he heard the Lord say on the cross. The words, "It is finished" appear to have been cried out loud and clear (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46). The words recorded by Luke were very possibly inaudible or unheard by John. They appear to have accompanied the very moment of his death.

Yes, I'm sure there's much more minutiae to talk about, most of it taken by faith from infidels.org. Of course even the apparently troublesome two stories of Judas' death has taken a serious turn for the harmonius since we found out there actually was an addition by one of God's little 4th century helpers. The irony kills me sometimes.

Rad

Ion · 10-26-2002, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man:

...
So far no one, not Leonarde, or Layman, or Radoth has addressed this. I've even told them how to counter my argument: show supernatural events that are widely considered to be true in the historical record.
...

I am addressing it:
I don't know of any paranormal event to be true in the historical record.

Unexplained events did and do happen, like cancer cures or physical events of the dinosaurs extinction type.
However paranormal events -like the Biblical supernatural miracles- are not in the historical record as having happened.

Ion · 10-26-2002, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

...
Of course even the apparently troublesome two stories of Judas' death has taken a serious turn for the harmonius since we found out there actually was an addition by one of God's little 4th century helpers.
...
Rad

Well,
this kind of struggle for consistency filling the Bible in all places, is good enough for me to disqualify the Bible as being divine, or even much historical.

Butters · 10-27-2002, 04:56 AM

I love this stuff!

What were Jesus' last words?
Could be what Matt recorded, could be what he said, or it could be what John recorded, or could be what Luke recorded, but of course there is no contradiction.

Jesus could have spoken anywhere as one account says on a mount, the other a plain, why not halfway, although this would be called foothills.

One geneology has forty something generations, the other twenty something, so maybe one is a summery, and on is his mothers line, even though they both say otherwise.

Did Judas hang himself or not, We don't know because the Bible is not to clear on that.

Who was at the tomb?
Was Jesus coming or going?
Did he come to preach to Jews only, or not?

And after all the wrangling, twisting of words, claiming that much was left out of some accounts, or had double meanings, or meanings that we don't understand today.

We are still to believe that this is an accurate account of history! Give me a break!

Butters · 10-27-2002, 05:10 AM

I'm sorry, I forgot about this,

Quote:

So, do Luke 23:46 and John 19:30 contradict? I do not believe so. John recorded what he heard the Lord say on the cross. The words, "It is finished" appear to have been cried out loud and clear (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46). The words recorded by Luke were very possibly inaudible or unheard by John. They appear to have accompanied the very moment of his death.

Of course they were unheard by John, they were unheard by All the disciples, as they had run away, and were not present at the crucifixion.

And of course Luke states at the top of his work that he was not an eyewitness, so in any book of history we would have to say we only have second hand evidence at best as to what his last words were, and could never say with any certianty what they REALLY were.
Now in examinig a history book, we could say that since Matt. and Mark record the same thing, this is most likely the correct version, but it IS in direct contradiction with John and Luke.
But of course thats not how we examine the Bible,is it?

10-26-2002, 11:57 AM	#121
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	You know leonarde, actually demonstrating that it is the worst (non??)summary is a lot more effective than just saying it is. Would it help if instead of "whacky events" I said "amazing and miraculous events"? It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive summary. I didn't include all of what you said, because all of what you said is frankly ridiculous. Let me attempt to restate "your position": You are claiming that because the bible contains a whole bunch of amazing and miraculous events, and that the authors implied that they actually occured, and that the bible contains historical facts about events that actually occured, we can rationally believe that everything in the bible actually occured. Happy? Or did I leave something out... [ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

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

10-26-2002, 12:01 PM	#122
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	The best "proof" that your "summary" is silly is to actually read all of my posts in their entirety in this thread. I'm confident that those who do, even if they don't agree with me will find your characterizations off the mark.... Cheers!

10-26-2002, 12:03 PM	#123
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Sorry Leo, I edited at the last minute.

10-26-2002, 06:44 PM	#125
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Actually, I feel I'm the one whose argument is being ignored. Just to remind everyone, it goes like this: 1. History is concerned with human events that we can be reasonably certain happened. 2. Supernatural events are not human events and we can't be certain they happened. 3. The evidence for this is that no supernatural event is widely considered to be historical by scholars. 4. Therefore, applying historical standards even-handedly, the supernatural events in the Bible can't be considered historical either. So far no one, not Leonarde, or Layman, or Radoth has addressed this. I've even told them how to counter my argument: show supernatural events that are widely considered to be true in the historical record. Come on, guys, I answer all your points. Why can't you answer mine?

10-27-2002, 04:56 AM	#129
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	I love this stuff! What were Jesus' last words? Could be what Matt recorded, could be what he said, or it could be what John recorded, or could be what Luke recorded, but of course there is no contradiction. Jesus could have spoken anywhere as one account says on a mount, the other a plain, why not halfway, although this would be called foothills. One geneology has forty something generations, the other twenty something, so maybe one is a summery, and on is his mothers line, even though they both say otherwise. Did Judas hang himself or not, We don't know because the Bible is not to clear on that. Who was at the tomb? Was Jesus coming or going? Did he come to preach to Jews only, or not? And after all the wrangling, twisting of words, claiming that much was left out of some accounts, or had double meanings, or meanings that we don't understand today. We are still to believe that this is an accurate account of history! Give me a break!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.