• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

HISTORICAL METHOD and the Question of Christian Origins


Why are you asking, no - demanding, that other do the work you are unable to perform?


The ever so little problem for you is that there are NO records supporting your beliefs about the origins of your faith. That 'ever so little problem' is why people today have begun questioning long-accepted beliefs.

By the way, there was no choosing in the first century, such picks only began in the second century, when there were more than 40 "gospels", and weren't finalised until the seventh century at the Council of Constantinople but even then it wasn't until the 16th Century that the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant religions firmly established the canonical text accepted today.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies chose only 20 books for his 'accepted' texts: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and Revelation

Tertullian didn't like Hebrews, First Peter, Second John, Jude, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Clement of Alexandria thought of, Hebrews, Second John, Jude, First and Second Epistles of Clement (of Rome), Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Revelation of Peter, as holding matters of interest but he didn't seem them as 'scriptural'.
 

Ulrich Wilckens, German papyrologist (1862-1944), Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979) German theologian and professor New Testament studies. Don't you find it interesting that Righter uses the present tense when quoting two dead guys?

Gary Habermas, despite his PhD, is not a scholar as ALL of his work is based upon the belief that the Gospels and Epistles are history.

Mr Righter is no scholar and has zero support from secular scholars of the period examined.

I'd like to know just which "critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.”
 

That source , although depended upon quite heavily, is an opinion page that does not provide support for it's claims.
 
Somerville said:
Why are you asking, no - demanding, that other do the work you are unable to perform?
Click to expand...

They make the claim, they need to back it up.


It's the Resurrection, Somerville. You can't get away from it, though you try. It's the fly in your ointment, the rain on your parade, and the Achilles Heel of every skeptic who has ever lived. It's documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Jesus is Lord!
 

Save it for someone who buys into your folly.
 

The core of your problem. It is NOT documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Please, tell us why there are zero non-Christian writings which support the various actions seen in the New Testaments.
 

I already provided links to you before, and you know it. There were plenty of different stories to choose from, the Bible was assembled out of that.

Do you have any proof of the Ressurection outside of the bible? You don't. It's why you react this way when simple facts like, the Bible was assembled centuries after the fact out of a collection of possible entries.

How were the books of the Bible selected and compiled, and how were the decisions made as to what would be distributed as the Word of God?

over three thousand books were candidates for inclusion in the New Testament canon alone
Click to expand...

The History of the Bible

So we know the Bible was put together much later, after the fact, there were a lot of stories to choose from.

So again, do you have any proof outside the Bible? The answer is no, you don't. We all know this, and this is why you rally so hard against anyone pointing this out. Resurrection is busted.
 

I looked at your links. Neither one was specific or answered the questions I posed, so try again:

Why don't you document all that "choosing" that you claim went on? I'd like to see you document the first and second-century meetings and people who did all that? Include the dates and places.
 

Give me outside proof of the Resurrection.

I gave you links to Christian sites talking about the assembly of the Bible. You just try to be as obtuse as possible because there is no proof of the resurrection outside the bible. But we know the Bible was put together much later and that it was selected from many possible entries.

The Resurrection is busted, less you have some proof outside of the bible. Do you? No...no you don't.
 

You're the one who made the claim about all the changes. If the NT didn't exist in the first place how could it have been changed?

So please document one resurrection passage that meant something different before it was allegedly 'changed'? And when was it changed and by whom?
 
Somerville said:
The core of your problem. It is NOT documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is. It's (the resurrection) in all four Gospels and various epistles.
 

I said that it was assembled much later from a larger selection. My links state just that. In fact the Catholic one states the bible as we know it was finished in the 5th century.

So please, give a source outside of the Bible that supports the Resurrection.
 
My statement:
Somerville said:
The core of your problem. It is NOT documented in multiple, independent, first-century writings.

Please, tell us why there are zero non-Christian writings which support the various actions seen in the New Testaments.
Click to expand...
followed by the same reply he has posted multiple times. A reply that shows the rational reader, the commenter really doesn't have a response to the question.

Logicman said:
It most certainly is. It's (the resurrection) in all four Gospels and various epistles.
Click to expand...

Your "independent" testimonies were chosen, and edited before and after their designation as canonical, to supply support for the claims of the early Church fathers.

Why are there no secular Roman reports supporting the claims about bizarre eclipses, the slaughter of infants, wandering stars and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem?
 

Read "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas. You can start with Clement of Rome who wrote about it. That's circa 90-125 AD.

To learn what's going on you'll need to start expanding your reading list.
 

There's no documented editing of the resurrection, Somerville. At least nothing that you can document, where the resurrection was something else before it was allegedly changed. It was always the resurrection. The sooner you quit being in denial of that the better off you'll be.
 
Logicman said:
Read "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas. You can start with Clement of Rome who wrote about it. That's circa 90-125 AD.

To learn what's going on you'll need to start expanding your reading list.
Click to expand...


Have you ever read the one extant letter of Clement, who was the third or maybe fourth Pope in Rome - (Jerome had a little disagreement with others who wrote about the period)? If you haven't, there are three translations to be found at Early Christian Writings.

For some reason, I don't have much faith in the reliability of a person who believed the Phoenix was a real creature.

Then there is Clement's ( or whoever actually wrote the words ) view that Christ was to soon return
The failure of the 'speedy' return has been a problem for Believers since the beginning of the church.

Another problem in calling upon this early church father to support the claims, in 1 Clement, there are ZERO mentions of the Gospels and the only Scriptures he quotes are passages to be found in the Septuagint
 

Why are there no secular Roman reports supporting the claims about bizarre eclipses, the slaughter of infants, wandering stars and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem?

Let us dwell upon possibilities

1: There was no resurrection as described in the Gospels. This is supported by the lack of secular reports of an eclipse or zombies walking about. We also have conflicting accounts of what exactly took place following the supposed resurrection. Yes, I know the Believers like to merge the stories to make them all True but when read side by side, it seems as if the authors all had different ideas and 'memories' of events which were supposedly crucial to the founding of the church.
2: The Jesus person wasn't dead when removed from the cross. Later appearances to the disciples were Jesus showing up in person
3: If there was a resurrection, the events described as taking place at the time of the crucifixion and those at the "empty tomb", were added to the earliest claims for 'verification' and thus add more evidence for the fictional creations that we know today.
4: If there was a crucifixion, the stories told in the Gospels were nothing more than a result of planning by an inside group which had decided to create a new creature - one who was human and god at the same time. They did this by setting up a stage play for the gullible
5: There was no Jesus and all that we read about Him in the New Testament is fiction written by those men who were looking at the oppression of the Jewish people under Roman rule and wished to provide some hope that things would get better - some day.
 
Logicman said:
Read "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas. You can start with Clement of Rome who wrote about it. That's circa 90-125 AD.

To learn what's going on you'll need to start expanding your reading list.
Click to expand...

So pretty much, no, you have nothing.
 

Yeah, I know. Everybody's screwed in the head except you and your liberal buddies. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all imposters and were smoking ragweed. Paul didn't know what the hell he was talking about either. Neither did Peter, Jude, or anyone else in the New Testament. The rabbis who said Isaiah 53 was Messianic were all screwed in the head too, as is anyone who brings them up. The women at the tomb who saw Jesus were deluded, as were all of the disciples, the men on the road to Emmaus, the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, all the conservative scholars whose dating and arguments you don't like, pretty much all the churches who worship the resurrected Christ, and anyone who shows up around here who doesn't kow-tow to your revisionist history. They're all screwed in the head, or are liars, charlatans, or madmen. But you, Somerville, have it all nailed down.

Sure, Somerville. You and your buddies here have a nice day. Say hello to the pink unicorn for me.
 

Here is a sincere question or three. Why does it matter? Isn't the message most important? If tomorrow it was somehow determined conclusively that Jesus was no more and no less the son/daughter of God than you or anyone else is, would that deminish the importance of the lessons that Jesus taught?

If you believe what Jesus taught what then is truth and what is Jesus? Can the goodness and love of/in the teachings of Christ be so fragile as to depend on the dearth of verifiable facts concerning the life of Jesus?
 

Ever so cute - denigration of points made against your views without supplying a single bit of new support or corroboration.


The books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by those whose names are found there today. This is verifiable if you were to take the time to actually read some scholarly, not apologetic works.

The difference comes in how one reads the words attributed to some guy named Paul, which today are only found in seven of the "Pauline epistles" -- Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians There is more debate on the authorship of Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians while the general opinion of those who know a few things about the creation of the canon are sure that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are pseudonymous writings. One of those 'liberal' academic types who support this division of the Epistles is Fr. Raymond E. Brown, a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission. "Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible," Paulist Press, (1990)

Paul knew what he was writing about but what you read today is not exactly what was originally written. The modern interpretations of the words are also not quite was intended for its first and second century readers.

Rabbis who saw the coming of a Messiah prophesied in Isaiah weren't speaking of the man known as Jesus. Their beliefs focused upon a new king who could unite the Jewish people and expel the Roman pagans from the homeland.

Which women at the tomb were deluded? We do have a bit of a problem with concordance of the tales told - which by the way weren't even known to those who called themselves Christian in the first century. There is some discussion even over the term Christian as some early writings use the adjective Nasoreans for the early groups.

It is not "conservative scholars" with which I disagree but those who claim to be scholars when they are little more than apologists.
 

There are some who call themselves Christian who do believe the Christ of the New Testament is a mythological being but still see the teachings as being moral and worth following. One well known mythicist scholar is the Irish Roman Catholic priest Thomas L. Brodie, who wrote Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery in which he explains how he came to disbelieve in an historical personage while still believing in Christ.
 

I have heard of Brodie and the book, but I know next to nothing about either. I'm going to put the book on my reading list. In my early Christian youth I began to question which was more important, the message or the vehicle. Couldn't the message be universal? Truth doesn't care who tells it.
 


Funny how the only places you can show that Rabbi's claim Isaiah 53 is Messianic is via Christian apologetic web sites, and you can't show what they wrote in context from their original writings.
 
RAMOSS said:
Funny how the only places you can show that Rabbi's claim Isaiah 53 is Messianic is via Christian apologetic web sites, and you can't show what they wrote in context from their original writings.
Click to expand...

Well, do you think modern day Jews, antichrists, atheists and agnostics will promote or defend it? Where O where have you been, Ramoss?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…