Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diadectes · 07-14-2003, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Magus: Please will you answer the question I asked you on page 2 of this thread! It was with reference to one of your biblical quotes.

DMB - I think you're wasting your time. I've only been here a short while, but it's quite clear even to me that Magus doesn't like answering questions. Guess it requires a little too much thought.

Can't think what he's so afraid of....

Rational BAC · 07-14-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Who told you the Bible was written in the 2nd Century? The last book was Revelation, which is most commonly accepted to have been written around the 90's AD.

Here are 2 looks showing the dates of the NT:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

Have to admit those links that Magus provided make a pretty good case for the 4 Gospels being written in the 1st century and 3 of them written before 70 AD.

Now, if I remember right, the main reason that atheists choose a later date---into the 2nd century--- is that Jesus prophesized the destruction of Jeruselum. And since prophecy is absurd to an atheist the Gospels had to have come after the fact.

I agree that explanation would work quite well for an athiest. But how does that in any way convince a theist?

Or maybe there is more the the atheist case on this than I have seen.

Biff the unclean · 07-14-2003, 09:23 AM

Now, if I remember right, the main reason that atheists choose a later date---into the 2nd century--- is that Jesus prophesized the destruction of Jeruselum. And since prophecy is absurd to an atheist the Gospels had to have come after the fact.

I agree that explanation would work quite well for an athiest. But how does that in any way convince a theist?

It depends on whether the Theist is an idiot or not. Most are not and will not try to deduce the answer to a scientific question by means other than scientific.
The latest events mentioned in the book occur in 70 CE therefore it could not have been written before these events. The earliest copies with intact colophons are from 325 CE. There are fragments of pages which are thought to be older by virtue of the handwriting style used but their colophons did not survive. So we can only say that the gospels were written no earlier than 70 and not later than 325 CE

Or maybe there is more the the atheist case on this than I have seen.
It's the scientific case not the Atheist. Atheists and Theists use science, they do so for logic's sake.
------
And speaking of logic...So if the dozen plus clearly written clams that the rapture will happen in the lifetimes of those in the first century don't mean what they plainly say they mean why should we think that such obvious bull shite as the dead rising and Xians meeting JC in the air and pale horsemen and numbered beasts and falling stars means what it says?

Rational BAC · 07-14-2003, 10:01 AM

Is that it Biff?

That is the whole basis of making the 4 Gospels much later than theists claim (with a pretty good case)?

The prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of Jeruselem?

If so -------I am sure it would work for an atheist who could not believe in the accuracy of any prophecy.

But you are still talking apples and oranges here. Why would a theist not believe in prophecy, especially by a semi-God?

Come on Biff--------there have to be better reasons than that.

Either you don't know them or you are being shy.

Got nothing better than that, then I am going with Magus on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS-------Although I will admit that it just brings up again that Jesus's prophecy of the end times "in this generation" is problematic.

I am a non-literalist so it doesn't really bother me. But it must bother the Fundies. A lot of "spinning" to get around this one is necessary.

Biff the unclean · 07-14-2003, 11:05 AM

Is that it Biff?

That is the whole basis of making the 4 Gospels much later than theists claim (with a pretty good case)?
What more do you want?

The prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of Jeruselem?
The sacking of Jerusalem being mentioned means that the mention of it couldn't have been made before the fact. The only reliable date we have is 325 CE

If so -------I am sure it would work for an atheist who could not believe in the accuracy of any prophecy.
It would work for anybody. Xians claim that it was written earlier is based on nothing except they want it to have been written earlier. That's just plain laughable.

Why would a theist not believe in prophecy, especially by a semi-God?
Why would they believe any prophecy at all?
Jean Dixon prophesied that Kennedy would be assassinated before he was shot. Or so she claims. Is anyone surprised that theses claims of prophesy all date from after the event?

Come on Biff--------there have to be better reasons than that.
Magic????? Your hero does magic in the story and tells the future�and I'm supposed to suspend everything I know about how the world works for a ridiculous claim of magic fortune telling????

Either you don't know them or you are being shy.
Time runs in one direction, from the past into the future. We can record and remember the past. We cannot record and remember the future because it hasn't happened.

Got nothing better than that, then I am going with Magus on this one.
Then if you go with Magus the dozen + "in this generation" cease to be metaphors written in the second century and, by your own admission, can only be lies and false prophecies from the first.

It's either a lie that Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed before the fact or it's a pack of lies that the rapture was happening in their lifetimes.

I am a non-literalist so it doesn't really bother me.
You have defended the apocryphal, the heretical and Christian anathemas. You boast that you cherry pick only the select parts you, yourself, are fond of. You reject Christian philosophy. The only thing you seem to like is the name "Christian," you don't seem to care what it actually means, so long as you can say Atheists are wrong.

mike_decock · 07-14-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
That is the whole basis of making the 4 Gospels much later than theists claim (with a pretty good case)?

The prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of Jeruselem?

There are also other issues like the anachronism of the rolling stone in front of the tomb:

Quote:

There is another reason to doubt the tomb burial that has come to my attention since I first wrote this review: the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus, yet it was often the case after 70 C.E., just when the gospels were being written. Amos Kloner, in "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?" (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that "more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones" (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, "the Second Temple period...ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common" (p. 25)

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../indef/4e.html

Or the fact that the author of gMark was unfamiliar with the geography of Plaestine.

Quote:

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

You'd probably get more mileage out of your question on the BC&H forum.

-Mike...

JaeIsGod · 07-14-2003, 11:46 AM

Lol , I cant believe my dumb ass rant tread is still here.

Keep up the good work guys! =]

Biff the unclean · 07-14-2003, 02:18 PM

You have to admit that it's great fun how quickly the Xian argument changed from 'believe what the bible says about the rapture, no matter how loopy it is, because it's god's word' to 'don't believe what the bible says, believe me instead.'

LOL. Any reports of the moon darkening or the stars falling from the sky yet?

winstonjen · 07-14-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
LOL. Any reports of the moon darkening or the stars falling from the sky yet?

Yes, but you have to drink disinfectant first.

Biff the unclean · 07-14-2003, 02:56 PM

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This verse here is the beginning of Jesus' transifiguration ( some theologians say this should actually be the first verse in chapter 17, but may have been put in 16 through translation).

You might be able to make a claim for this except 16:28 is a continuation of the thought in 16:27 Each time a character in the NT speaks it is announced who is speaking as it was earlier in 16. Were it moved to start 17 it would become a non sequitur. It would also be the only time in the bible that dialogue was not attributed to a specific character. On top of that this is not the only time in the NT that this story is told. The other versions have this same "in this generation" in them. That or saying that some standing there would still be alive, which is close enough. If one is to use the bible to understand the bible then you must compare a story in one gospel with that same story in another and not shift verses from one story into different one where they don't belong like the parts of a Mr Potato Head doll.
If Jesus fulfilled revelation in the 1st Century, we wouldn't be here right now.
That's right it wasn't fulfilled, we are here. It didn't happen. The bible said more than a dozen times that it would. Jesus promised that it would.
And it didn't.
The bible is wrong. Jesus didn't keep his promise�it's as simple as that.

07-14-2003, 02:56 PM	#70
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Gospel of Mr Potato Head Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. This verse here is the beginning of Jesus' transifiguration ( some theologians say this should actually be the first verse in chapter 17, but may have been put in 16 through translation). You might be able to make a claim for this except 16:28 is a continuation of the thought in 16:27 Each time a character in the NT speaks it is announced who is speaking as it was earlier in 16. Were it moved to start 17 it would become a non sequitur. It would also be the only time in the bible that dialogue was not attributed to a specific character. On top of that this is not the only time in the NT that this story is told. The other versions have this same "in this generation" in them. That or saying that some standing there would still be alive, which is close enough. If one is to use the bible to understand the bible then you must compare a story in one gospel with that same story in another and not shift verses from one story into different one where they don't belong like the parts of a Mr Potato Head doll. If Jesus fulfilled revelation in the 1st Century, we wouldn't be here right now. That's right it wasn't fulfilled, we are here. It didn't happen. The bible said more than a dozen times that it would. Jesus promised that it would. And it didn't. The bible is wrong. Jesus didn't keep his promise�it's as simple as that.

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

07-14-2003, 09:23 AM	#63
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Now, if I remember right, the main reason that atheists choose a later date---into the 2nd century--- is that Jesus prophesized the destruction of Jeruselum. And since prophecy is absurd to an atheist the Gospels had to have come after the fact. I agree that explanation would work quite well for an athiest. But how does that in any way convince a theist? It depends on whether the Theist is an idiot or not. Most are not and will not try to deduce the answer to a scientific question by means other than scientific. The latest events mentioned in the book occur in 70 CE therefore it could not have been written before these events. The earliest copies with intact colophons are from 325 CE. There are fragments of pages which are thought to be older by virtue of the handwriting style used but their colophons did not survive. So we can only say that the gospels were written no earlier than 70 and not later than 325 CE Or maybe there is more the the atheist case on this than I have seen. It's the scientific case not the Atheist. Atheists and Theists use science, they do so for logic's sake. ------ And speaking of logic...So if the dozen plus clearly written clams that the rapture will happen in the lifetimes of those in the first century don't mean what they plainly say they mean why should we think that such obvious bull shite as the dead rising and Xians meeting JC in the air and pale horsemen and numbered beasts and falling stars means what it says?

07-14-2003, 10:01 AM	#64
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Is that it Biff? That is the whole basis of making the 4 Gospels much later than theists claim (with a pretty good case)? The prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of Jeruselem? If so -------I am sure it would work for an atheist who could not believe in the accuracy of any prophecy. But you are still talking apples and oranges here. Why would a theist not believe in prophecy, especially by a semi-God? Come on Biff--------there have to be better reasons than that. Either you don't know them or you are being shy. Got nothing better than that, then I am going with Magus on this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PS-------Although I will admit that it just brings up again that Jesus's prophecy of the end times "in this generation" is problematic. I am a non-literalist so it doesn't really bother me. But it must bother the Fundies. A lot of "spinning" to get around this one is necessary.

07-14-2003, 11:05 AM	#65
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Is that it Biff? That is the whole basis of making the 4 Gospels much later than theists claim (with a pretty good case)? What more do you want? The prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of Jeruselem? The sacking of Jerusalem being mentioned means that the mention of it couldn't have been made before the fact. The only reliable date we have is 325 CE If so -------I am sure it would work for an atheist who could not believe in the accuracy of any prophecy. It would work for anybody. Xians claim that it was written earlier is based on nothing except they want it to have been written earlier. That's just plain laughable. Why would a theist not believe in prophecy, especially by a semi-God? Why would they believe any prophecy at all? Jean Dixon prophesied that Kennedy would be assassinated before he was shot. Or so she claims. Is anyone surprised that theses claims of prophesy all date from after the event? Come on Biff--------there have to be better reasons than that. Magic????? Your hero does magic in the story and tells the future�and I'm supposed to suspend everything I know about how the world works for a ridiculous claim of magic fortune telling???? Either you don't know them or you are being shy. Time runs in one direction, from the past into the future. We can record and remember the past. We cannot record and remember the future because it hasn't happened. Got nothing better than that, then I am going with Magus on this one. Then if you go with Magus the dozen + "in this generation" cease to be metaphors written in the second century and, by your own admission, can only be lies and false prophecies from the first. It's either a lie that Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed before the fact or it's a pack of lies that the rapture was happening in their lifetimes. I am a non-literalist so it doesn't really bother me. You have defended the apocryphal, the heretical and Christian anathemas. You boast that you cherry pick only the select parts you, yourself, are fond of. You reject Christian philosophy. The only thing you seem to like is the name "Christian," you don't seem to care what it actually means, so long as you can say Atheists are wrong.

07-14-2003, 11:46 AM	#67
JaeIsGod Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 760	Lol , I cant believe my dumb ass rant tread is still here. Keep up the good work guys! =]

07-14-2003, 02:18 PM	#68
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	You have to admit that it's great fun how quickly the Xian argument changed from 'believe what the bible says about the rapture, no matter how loopy it is, because it's god's word' to 'don't believe what the bible says, believe me instead.' LOL. Any reports of the moon darkening or the stars falling from the sky yet?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.