Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Think of what we have now as the Bible as the books that were peer reviewed
Of course all that assumes they never previously reduced to writing (in their own records) that which transpired, or they all developed amnesia, or whatever.
They also had a helper - the Holy Spirit.
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26
And now would be the time for skeptics to trot out their anti-supernatural bias!
Of course all that assumes they never previously reduced to writing (in their own records) that which transpired, or they all developed amnesia, or whatever.
They also had a helper - the Holy Spirit.
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26
And now would be the time for skeptics to trot out their anti-supernatural bias!
They very well could have done those things. But is there evidence that those writings not only existed, but the authors of the gospels individually had access to them.
That also opens the can of worms of -- well if they did this, why the hell don't the gospels match?
Evidence for this 'holy spirit?' Call it whatever you'd like, it does not change the fact that claims have been asserted and, so far, have lived up to neither the scientific nor the historical burden of proof. I get the Bible may be 'fact' enough for you -- that does not make it so for anyone else. That's why it's called faith.
Isn't that a bit circular? We know that the Bible is true because the bible says that it was supernaturally inspired. And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. . And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. etc...
Ouch.. "Novice".. Switching from to circulus in probando to ad hominem.That's what novices who have little in-depth knowledge of the Bible often claim. But believe it if you want.
Ouch.. "Novice".. Switching from to circulus in probando to ad hominem.
Must be one of those mysteries of the faith which can't possibly be explained, only believed.
There's no archaeological or early manuscript evidence for that. But it's called the 'Q' theory, which had some initial support by liberal theologians, but which has now been largely refuted.
If they did all match exactly the argument would be they all copied from one or more sources. But there is a certain 'Harmony' of the Gospels. Here's a link on the Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts.
Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts
Nope. When you get Jesus you'll probably get a good dose of the Holy Spirit too. He's very real indeed.
You're much more familiar with the subject than me and though was once a cynic am less so now. Like many others I've seen evidence that there is more to this life than yes or no and, as usual, Shakespeare gave mention to this conundrum many of us face.It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.
For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?
The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
Thus the peer reviewOh indubitably, for very obvious reasons. If you've ever read any of the similar writings at the time that were rejected for canonisation, many laughs.
No 'Q' Theory is a theory of investment. You're thinking of Q source. And no, it has not been 'largely refuted,' there is both a case for and against it, as many historical debates.
And if they matched, that would lend to the idea that maybe the stories were true. And no, there's not harmony, there is some broad overlap. For instance, the Virgin Birth mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels. Well that's a pretty damn big deal when you're talking about someone supposedly divine.
And how about the other inconsistencies not only in the gospels but between other books in the Bible?
What matters is was he divine.
Some call it Q Source and some call it what it really is - the Q Theory, and one for which there is zero historical, archaeological, or traditional evidence for.
That's a bad example against there being harmony for the simple reason that the other two Gospels (Mark and John) begin their Gospels when Jesus is fully grown.
Listen, you get four eyewitnesses in a court of law and think they'll all agree 100%? I don't think so.
But they all confirm the resurrection. So when they do all agree on something you still won't believe it, right?
You're taking the view that if they don't agree 100% then that's inconsistencies or contradictions. It's neither. Instead they're complementary.
Anyone who declares in advance that he is going to be killed, and then three days later raise HIMSELF from the dead like he prophesied, and pulls it off, gets my vote.
I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.
So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)
[I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.
"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."
These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much.
Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?
They were written by various people over that time frame... never knew you were so dishonest.
No later than 150 AD... seems like that fits perfectly.
I won't deal with another poster tha I used to respect that starts lying... at least not tonight.
I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.
I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence.
Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.
"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."
And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much
Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?
... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.
I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.
So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)
I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.
"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."
See. We're no better off than when we started. And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much. Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?
... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.
Yes, I've posted this previously to the Consternation of several of the usual suspects.Isn't that a bit circular? We know that the Bible is true because the bible says that it was supernaturally inspired. And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. . And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. etc...
Nice backpedal.It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.
For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?
View attachment 67182985
The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
Nice backpedal.
You're right, I certainly qualify as a "novice" or an "amateur" as I don't make money off of religious studies.
And it's funny, you say that the more you study the Bible and yet.. studying the Bible seems to consist of reading commentaries other people wrote on the Bible. Why not just read the actual Bible? Most of those commentaries, including the Evidence that Demands a verdict series are unfortunately pseudo-intellectual fluff pieces. They spend a lot of time attacking weak strawmen arguments and are chalked full of factual inaccuracies. eg.. the New Testament wasn't written by eyewitnesses, isn’t' unique among ancient manuscripts, and is no more self consistent through the centuries than any other document... (arguably less so).
How could you ignore the Council of Nicea and it's relationship to Constantine and the politics of Rome? What about the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts? What about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? The differences between the Apostles' Creed and the Nicean Creed? What of the Gnostic movement? What about the numerous contradictions throughout the Bible? The actual hard questions are far too numerous to tick off here.
The net result is a much more true to life feel. Much of the "interconnectedness" you're talking about is that most Bible versions translate everything to sound the same. Lattimore's doesn't. Mark is choppy and unsophisticated. Luke is flowing and elegant. The letters are actually letters.
But.. I'm a novice, and you're an "expert".
Wow! Stunning....If this is reviewed, and verified, what, and how do you see this effecting Christianity? Especially considering the open attack it is under today?
Attack on Christianity???? All I see is that people are resisting the attempt of Christians to legislate their religious "morality" on the rest of us as is done in theocracies like Iran and by ISIS. Worship as you like, just leave me out of it. And don't go trying to preach religious beliefs on my kids under the guise of science. Creationism is not science. The world is not 7,000 years old. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Christians are the aggressors here pretending to be victims.
Ah, I see. It's not because they are Christian but because they actually live by their beliefs then. You've got Google, you can look it up if you like, but you won't. Personally I have never seen gay people discriminated against, so I guess it never happens. Interesting enough we do not see other religions attacked in the same way. Islam says to kill homosexuals, and yet we don't hear anything from the gay community about that. It also treats women as property, and yet the feminists don't seem to know it, or at least they don't say anything about it. There is most certainly discrimination toward Christians, I suspect the reason Muslims and Christians are treated differently by these groups is that if you attack Muslims they just might kill you. Our President pointed out that Christians were barbaric during the Crusades, perhaps we should go back to that.
Proof that he was human and not Divine? Like many thought back then too...
Attack on Christianity???? All I see is that people are resisting the attempt of Christians to legislate their religious "morality" on the rest of us as is done in theocracies like Iran and by ISIS. Worship as you like, just leave me out of it. And don't go trying to preach religious beliefs on my kids under the guise of science. Creationism is not science. The world is not 7,000 years old. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Christians are the aggressors here pretending to be victims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?