What would you have done?

[watsup]

I am aware that many Christians say this kind of stuff, I've challenged some of them in fact because I doubt what they say.

But it doesn't matter, what we have in the NT predates any organized christianity, and the way people behave thousands of years later is obviously unrelated to what may have happened in the past.

You cannot evaluate the NT by looking at data from two thousand years later, it has no bearing, the NT can only be evaluated with reference to contemporary data.

I don't actually have to show anybody anything, if others are uninterested or are unconvinced then so be it, we each must decide what to believe.

The NewTestament does not “predate Christianity”. It was not organized until at least a couple of hundred years after the death of Christ. Why do you keep saying that?

 

[Daisy]

The NewTestament does not “predate Christianity”. It was not organized until at least a couple of hundred years after the death of Christ. Why do you keep saying that?

The writings were there though there was no organized book called the Bible...Jesus quoted from the Hebrew scriptures many times...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It amazes me how those here who decry the NT have never actually studied the subject, not even read a book on the subject.

The subject has a huge knowledge base, thousands of scholars have invested thousands of hours over the centuries, there's a huge amount of information.

It encompasses archeology, paleography, ancient history, textual criticism, translation, linguistics, carbon dating, and so on - the superficial arguments I've seen here are dripping with ignorance, at least make an effort to get some awareness of the subject before denouncing it.

 

[watsup]

It amazes me how those here who decry the NT have never actually studied the subject, not even read a book on the subject.

The subject has a huge knowledge base, thousands of scholars have invested thousands of hours over the centuries, there's a huge amount of information.

It encompasses archeology, paleography, ancient history, textual criticism, translation, linguistics, carbon dating, and so on - the superficial arguments I've seen here are dripping with ignorance, at least make an effort to get some awareness of the subject before denouncing it.

It’s a book of myths. There is no clear evidence that such a particular person as Jesus the Christ ever actually lived.

 

[watsup]

It amazes me how those here who decry the NT have never actually studied the subject, not even read a book on the subject.

The subject has a huge knowledge base, thousands of scholars have invested thousands of hours over the centuries, there's a huge amount of information.

It encompasses archeology, paleography, ancient history, textual criticism, translation, linguistics, carbon dating, and so on - the superficial arguments I've seen here are dripping with ignorance, at least make an effort to get some awareness of the subject before denouncing it.

Or we could study Aesop’s fables.

 

[watsup]

It amazes me how those here who decry the NT have never actually studied the subject, not even read a book on the subject.

The subject has a huge knowledge base, thousands of scholars have invested thousands of hours over the centuries, there's a huge amount of information.

It encompasses archeology, paleography, ancient history, textual criticism, translation, linguistics, carbon dating, and so on - the superficial arguments I've seen here are dripping with ignorance, at least make an effort to get some awareness of the subject before denouncing it.

It amazes me how you pick and choose and aim to confuse in order to tout your prearranged narrative. You continually speak of the story of miracles contained in the “New Testament” and yet what are really referring to are just the books of MMLJ, That’s not the “New Testament”, that’s four specific “books”, period. Not only that, but many if not most Bible “scholars” believe that Matthew is the only original story and Mark and Luke were not original research, so to speak, but rather basically just a repetition of Matthew in their own writing style and perhaps adding a few more rumors that they had heard on the street. Same with John, except that he then added more mysticism to the story. Plus, of course, the same Bible scholars see the book as “hearsay” and do not believe that it was apostles MMLJ who actually wrote the books.

 

[blarg]

why would it be up to people to show the actions and will of an all powerful all knowing god? one who wants to make itself known?

 

[devildavid]

I'll characterize it as I see fit.

And you will be incorrect in doing so every time.

 

[Individual]

Imagine if someone from 2000 years ago were to be brought to life today, they'd spend eternity trying to write about all the miracles they would be observing and all the Godlike people performing them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And you will be incorrect in doing so every time.

I've never been wrong yet.

 

[ataraxia]

It amazes me how those here who decry the NT have never actually studied the subject, not even read a book on the subject.

The subject has a huge knowledge base, thousands of scholars have invested thousands of hours over the centuries, there's a huge amount of information.

It encompasses archeology, paleography, ancient history, textual criticism, translation, linguistics, carbon dating, and so on - the superficial arguments I've seen here are dripping with ignorance, at least make an effort to get some awareness of the subject before denouncing it.

Most Biblical scholars, who have spent entire careers and lifetimes studying this stuff, are agnostics or atheists. Many of them went into the field as devout believers, only wanting to deepen their understanding of the scripture. But their study is exactly what led to the loss of that belief.

 

[gboisjo]

Imagine if someone from 2000 years ago were to be brought to life today, they'd spend eternity trying to write about all the miracles they would be observing and all the Godlike people performing them.

Yup, pretty much says it all.

To be having this conversation at all, is nonsense.

Research Roman superstition and beliefs 2000 years and you'll get back a plethora of info on what these ancients thought. It was a
world full of magic, curses and sacrifice.

Haruspicy, the study of a the liver of a sacrificed animal, was widely practiced in Rome. The liver was mapped out and read like a palm. Parents hung penis-shaped amulets around the necks of their children to ward off the evil eye. Grit left in wine goblets was read for fortunes. The word "fortune” comes from the Latin word fortuna. Fortuna was the goddess of wisdom, prophecy and the dead. She was also known as Lady Luck.

ANCIENT ROMAN SUPERSTITIONS, OMENS, DIVINATION, MAGIC AND CURSES

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub405/item2078.html

 

[Daisy]

Imagine if someone from 2000 years ago were to be brought to life today, they'd spend eternity trying to write about all the miracles they would be observing and all the Godlike people performing them.

That's really funny, considering that raising the dead, turning water into wine, feeding a multitude on 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes, healing the blind, the deaf, the crippled and sickly would still be considered miracles...yesterday, today, and tomorrow...indoor plumbing, cars that run on gas, and airplanes that fly...not so much...

 

[gboisjo]

Sherlock Holmes said:

It amazes me how those here who decry the NT have never actually studied the subject, not even read a book on the subject.

The subject has a huge knowledge base, thousands of scholars have invested thousands of hours over the centuries, there's a huge amount of information.

It encompasses archeology, paleography, ancient history, textual criticism, translation, linguistics, carbon dating, and so on - the superficial arguments I've seen here are dripping with ignorance, at least make an effort to get some awareness of the subject before denouncing it.

Most Biblical scholars, who have spent entire careers and lifetimes studying this stuff, are agnostics or atheists. Many of them went into the field as devout believers, only wanting to deepen their understanding of the scripture. But their study is exactly what led to the loss of that belief.

Yea, it doesn't take a whole lotta research to understand what was on the minds of ancients some 2000 years ago.

1. You can predict the future from the entrails of animals.

2. If you see an epileptic, spit on yourself to prevent "catching" what they have.

3. The ashes of a redhead will guarantee you a good harvest.

4. Touch a man condemned to death and you'll have good luck.

5. A battle's winner depends on whether chickens will eat cake.

6. A forked branch will dip if it nears water.

7. If your chest-hair curls upwards, you'll become a slave.

 

[Daisy]

Most Biblical scholars, who have spent entire careers and lifetimes studying this stuff, are agnostics or atheists. Many of them went into the field as devout believers, only wanting to deepen their understanding of the scripture. But their study is exactly what led to the loss of that belief.

Really? Most? Who are these converts?

 

[watsup]

I've never been wrong yet.

Your post above immediately disproves that.

 

[devildavid]

I've never been wrong yet.

Oops, you did it again.

 

[ataraxia]

Really? Most? Who are these converts?

“The “enormous gap” continues between what the average lay person believes to be true about Jesus and what “the great majority of New Testament scholars” conclude after 150 years of research and debate, he said.”

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Daisy]

“The “enormous gap” continues between what the average lay person believes to be true about Jesus and what “the great majority of New Testament scholars” conclude after 150 years of research and debate, he said.”

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Yet, "many/most" is still unsupported by the article...I would like to see names...

 

[ataraxia]

Yet, "many/most" is still unsupported by the article...I would like to see names...

I am not sure how " the great majority of New Testament scholars” and "many/most" mean different things.

Names you want?

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Ehrman tells how he was a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1][4] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]

"I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]

He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist"

 

[Daisy]

I am not sure how " the great majority of New Testament scholars” and "many/most" mean different things.

Names you want?

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Ehrman tells how he was a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1][4] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]

"I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]

He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist"

Yeah, if you google, he's the only one who comes up...

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah, if you google, he's the only one who comes up...

I assure you, you will find lots of that in just about every religion department at every major university.

" One commentator has characterized Harvey's career after 1980 as having been transformed from theologian into skeptical student of religion.[4] This change is reflected in both his articles and preeminently in his third book Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion (1995), winner of the 1996 American Academy of Religion’s award for excellence in constructive-reflective studies.[5 "

Van A. Harvey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Daisy]

I assure you, you will find lots of that in just about every religion department at every major university.

" One commentator has characterized Harvey's career after 1980 as having been transformed from theologian into skeptical student of religion.[4] This change is reflected in both his articles and preeminently in his third book Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion (1995), winner of the 1996 American Academy of Religion’s award for excellence in constructive-reflective studies.[5 "

Van A. Harvey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Maybe but more info can be found on those who are Christian...website after website...here are just 3...

The 20 Most Influential Christian Scholars

superscholar.org

I (Still) Believe: Leading Bible Scholars Share Their Stories of Faith and Scholarship - Christian Scholar’s Review

I (Still) Believe: Leading Bible Scholars Share Their Stories of Faith and Scholarship John Byron and Joel N. Lohr, eds. Published by Zondervan in 2015 239pp / $25 / 9780310515166...

christianscholars.com

Category:Christian scholars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ataraxia]

Maybe but more info can be found on those who are Christian...website after website...here are just 3...

The 20 Most Influential Christian Scholars

superscholar.org

I (Still) Believe: Leading Bible Scholars Share Their Stories of Faith and Scholarship - Christian Scholar’s Review

I (Still) Believe: Leading Bible Scholars Share Their Stories of Faith and Scholarship John Byron and Joel N. Lohr, eds. Published by Zondervan in 2015 239pp / $25 / 9780310515166...

christianscholars.com

Category:Christian scholars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That it's a big story to say "I (still) believe" says something about how rare that must be, don't you think?

 

[Daisy]

That it's a big story to say "I (still) believe" says something about how rare that must be, don't you think?

And even bigger story that a person, after studying God's Word intensely, declares himself an atheist...they are few and far between...