Um, water and ice are the same thing.

Let's pray to Water, the Sun, and Oxygen.

Putting the Gospels to the same standards that historians do for determining whether a given text is evidence for the events it describes, it stands up better than most ancient histories. Most ancient historical texts were written many years after the events described (often thousands, as Josephus did now and then), not by anyone who even appears to be an eyewitness (Josephus personally witnessed some, but not much, of what he wrote about, and what we have is taken from a handful of copies dating many centuries, even 1000 years in some cases, after they were written. I don't believe Tacitus personally witnessed any of it, and I know the earliest copies of his work "Annals" dates to 950 years after it was written, and we have only two ancient copies. And these are two of the most widely regarded historians of their era). For the Gospels, they were written within the same century of the events, two appear to be primarily eyewitness accounts (the other two only once or twice removed), and are taken from thousands of copies, the earliest fragments dating to within a generation or two after they were written, the earliest full copies within 2-3 centuries. So the Bible is, per historical standards, good evidence for the events it describes.

If you believe that the major events of the Gospels never happened, then you're believing something which is contrary to the evidence. Though don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong to do so. But pretending the evidence does not exist is wrong, however.

David

Which doesn't throw the authorship question into doubt. People are able to write about things that happened many years before, as long as they are still alive to do so. And there's no evidence that any of the four Gospels were written after the lives of their credited authors. So go ahead and doubt if you want, but don't use this as a reason to do so.

What's your evidence for this?

Most Bible scholars do believe that the authorship credits were correct, and there's no evidence that the credited authors were illiterate, though some of the other apostles may have been.

It was quite common at the time for teachers to do the teaching and for their students to do the writing, which is what we have. For example, Socrates taught much philosophy during his life, yet apparently never wrote anything himself, though his followers such as Plato and Xenophon did write about him.

David

The Josephus writings were a forgery. :roll:

All of them? You're actually claiming that "Life of Flavius", all twenty books of "History of the Jews", "Flavius vs. Apion", and all seven books of "The Wars of the Jews" were forgeries? You've GOT to be kidding. Except for a handful of passages, historians consider Josephus' writings to be exactly what he wrote and generally historically reliable. I've never heard anyone claim his writings were a forgery.

David

But you're forgetting the reason for Socrates' illiteracy. He believed that literacy undermines memory, that if we write things down, we tend to forget them. So even if he had learned to write, he still almost certainly wouldn't have bothered doing so. So illiteracy was, for him, a preference. It wasn't like he didn't write because he wasn't able to learn how. Even had he learned, he wouldn't have.

And actually, the belief that Socrates was illiterate (as far as I know) was merely an assumption, based on the fact that he never wrote anything down. We don't know for sure that he wasn't able to. We just know he didn't.

David

But why? I wasn't discussing anything about the passages where Jesus was mentioned, so what's the point of bringing it up?

I was just saying that he wasn't a witness to most of what he wrote (which is true) and that many of his writings have their earliest copies date hundreds of years after he wrote them (which is true), yet he is still one of the most regarded historians of his age (which is true). I never brought up his mentions of Jesus, directly or indirectly. So how does saying that his mentions of Jesus were forgeries respond to anything I wrote? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And you accuse ME of red herrings?

David

Of course they do. For one thing, they are clearly four different perspectives on the same series of events, giving differing details while agreeing on the major events. That's the kind of thing we see from independent eyewitness accounts, not from fiction. People tend to remember the most important things, but their memories are a bit fuzzy about minor details. Had the authors simply made the whole thing up, we would expect them to have agreed on the even the minor details and we'd see all details in the Gospels falling into line. Or if they'd made up their own stories separately, we'd expect very little to match up, including major events. When historians come across multiple eyewitness accounts of a certain series of events, what we see in the Gospels is the kind of stuff that convinces them that the events likely happened.

Yes, since Jesus wasn't still on Earth during the time Paul was writing about, but had already ascended to Heaven. But Paul did clearly believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus, so He knew Jesus had been on Earth.

That makes no sense. As long as the authors were still alive, Jesus having died wouldn't prevent them from being able to write about Him. And there's no evidence that the authors died before their Gospels were written.

No, the idea that the Gospel writers were intending to write fiction does not make any sense. There was a whole lot of persecution of Christians going on. All they had to say was "No, it's just fiction - we don't believe any of this actually happened", and it would have all been over. Their actions, and many things the Christians wrote in the first century, show that they believed it was all true.

On the contrary, passing along information orally was taken a lot more seriously back then than it is now, considering the high illiteracy rate. These days we expect information to be written down. Back then, they relied on oral transmission. But that's beside the point, since the ones doing the writing (at least in the case of the Gospels of Matthew and John) appear by all evidence to have been the eyewitnesses themselves, so it wasn't anything they'd heard about from others.

No, because there isn't any evidence favoring the non-theistic interpretation. There is no evidence that the people of the 1st century believed the story to be a parable, not history, or that John and Matthew were not the writers of their Gospels. I'm not saying that atheists are wrong to believe the resurrection never happened, since no atheist could believe such an event is possible, but it is a belief which is contrary to the evidence and they need to face that fact instead of denying it.

Actually, all that atheists need to do is say "I don't believe that resurrection is possible, so, despite the evidence for the resurrection, I don't believe it happened." I won't try to convince them otherwise. I just have a problem when atheists (or other non-believers) pretend the evidence does not exist or that there is evidence proving that the Gospel authors are falsely credited or just plain false. You're all entitled to your opinions, and can reject the Gospels however you want. But since the evidence is clearly in favor of the Gospels, don't pretend it isn't.

David

I sure hope the moon is made of green cheese because I fucking love cheese, and with that much cheese we'd NEVER run out!

Wouldn't space be the ultimate vacuum bag for perishable items? Someone should probably patent it before someone else jumps on that business venture.

Shouldn't that bit incorporate something about secretion of water through sweat and urine?

Or evaporated?

GOOD sciuns is WATERY SCIUNS! It don't make you THINK TOO HARD or anything like that prase water prase christ!

There are many forgivable sins, doubting the word of Sapient however, is not one of them.

This is a seperate topic really. We're dealing with two things here. On one hand we have sound logical and reasonable reasons to doubt the Christians savior never existed. On the other hand we have the proper proof one must have to believe in something, and that is of course, that it was revealed to me! You must be willing to accept this truth I have offered you on faith. Accept this truth with your whole heart, c'mon you know you want to.

One that performed miracles and was the son of god, or just a man that existed?

Yeah! There's alot of guys named Jesus right now, walking around in Mexico. Although I hear it's pronounced differently.

All claims of jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

Not one eyewitness of the alleged Jesus ever wrote about him*.

*Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves.

LMAO!!!

Agreed on the "before" part, although he may have meant that in terms of prophecy.

As for Paul, yes, Paul would have been a contemporary, but he doesn't count, as he never witnessed anything Jesus did. In fact, he only wrote after his conversion in the later years of his life (before he died). Not one jot was taken any earlier, which is strange if he had been preaching (As is according to Acts) ever since the days of Jesus.

So for twenty years (At least) he preached and preached and even became a Bishop yet he never once jotted down an inkling during those years? I can't believe that especially if he had heard about Jesus before his conversion, and especially if he had talked to and preached for twenty years. No minister can not mention a miracle of Jesus within five minutes of meeting you!

And Paul doesn't seem to believe that Jesus was a real person, and he certainly knows nothing of Jesus' ministry or life, even after speaking to Peter and James (And this is pretty damaging to you because you ignorantly claimed that James mentioned in Galatians was literally the brother of Jesus - which is not the case). Had Jesus been real, certainly when he ran into Titus, Peter, James or Barnabas he would have recounted several key facts about Jesus.

Or even a quote or a statement from the lips of Jesus himself, but we get none of this. None. So Paul doesn't count, and the only way he does is if you review an alternative perspective of what Paul believed.

If he met anyone with any real knowledge of a 'jesus', he demonstrated a rather bizarre lack of curiosity about any details. And seeing that he equates his vision of jesus with the supposed 'eyewitnessing' of others, we really need to question your claim here....

Both parts have been equally addressed in public debates concerning 'historicity'.
It becomes a 'crazy, ignorant, or lying' episode with only ancient writings as reference.
What about option #3?
Where did the epistles and the gospels derive from in the first place?
If you are asking us to have faith that either Paul or the gospels is correct then we arrive at the obvious conclusion that neither is true based upon any evidence. (see definition of 'faith')
Would it really make a difference to you if one more biblical scholar or ancient historian came on the show? Or are you just looking for affirmation of your judgment concerning the rrs?
www.freethoughtmedia.com has a listing of shows to listen to and ask questions. Dr. Price would love to hear your questions, I'm sure. Of course, I'm also sure that he'll call you on the 'faith' in the gospels/epistles thing as well.

Will he come on too?

He just called you a loony fundy, except that he conceded that you critically examined your beliefs... but what make a fundy a fundy in the first place?

Their dogmatic refusal to question their beliefs!

If this 'be' his logic, I'm not all that concerned....

To start things off i would like to know how this was revealed to you cause first if your only going to give us your word that he didn't exist cause it was reveald to you then why should we trust your word its the same aspect as the word of the New Testament and there is more proof for that then your word?

Let’s examine the story of the birth of jesus, shall we?

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
Luke 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

This neatly frames the timeline of the events preceding the birth of jesus. He was born after the census of Cyrenius and during the last years of the reign of Herod the Great. It is clear, concise and unequivocal, it is also historically impossible.

Here are the facts, Herod the Great, died in the year 4 BCE.
Cyrenius became Governor of Syria in the year 6 CE, partly due to Herod’s death.
If you accept the part of the story that tells us that Joseph packed up the pregnant mizzus and made the trip to Bethlehem because of the census decreed by Cyrenius, then the parts about Herod, particularly the ‘slaughter of the innocents’, wherein Herod ordered every child under age 2 in the region to be killed become absurd. Since Herod was dead at least ten years past, the slaughter story, the wise men from the east, indeed, the reason for Joseph and family to high tail it to Egypt at all disappears in a ‘poof’ of reality.

We are left with an obviously bogus nativity tale, and the credibility of the story tellers in doubt. The evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that the gospels were written not by eye witnesses to events, but by outsiders with only a vague knowledge of the geography and history of the region, and vivid imaginations as well as a willingness to plagiarize freely, thus repeating and amplifying errors.

LC >;-}>
 

ok ok ok

 

I"ve read through alot of what has been said but I haven't read it all. Sorry if I'm just re-stating facts that someone already has.

 

FIRST off, lets look at the Bible as any old book...

such as Homer's "Illiad"

Homer's "illiad" was written in 800 B.C. & the eariest copies are from 400 A.D. Thats a 400 year time gap from when it was first written to when it was first copied. There are exactly 643 different copies if the "Illiad" they are 95% correct with the original. As to my knowledge the original of th "Illiad" does not exist, but we know that the book is 95% accurate with the original because if you line all the copies up only 5% of the words or phrases are different. so the other 95% that ALL THE OTHER COPIES HAVE WRiTTENm in them was also written in the original

 

Ok...so now lets take a look at the Bible....

 

The New Testament was written from 50 AD to 100AD.

about 114 AD there were fragment of the New Testament copied. this is a 50 yr time gap

About 200 AD whole books were copied, this is a 100 yr time gap

about 250 AD mos of the New testamnet was copied down, 450 yr time gap

and finaly about 325 AD the omplete New Testament was being copied 225 yr time gap.

 

in all there are 5,366 different copies of the Bible. & it is 99% accurate to the original!!!!!

we know this because just like in the "Illiad" we can line all the books up and they match all except 1%

This adds up to about 40 lines in the books & none of these lines had anything to do with any miracles, or prophacies made.

 

SO...this proves that the Bible isn't just some big fish story that someone just cooked up & it got bigger and bigger as time went by....

NOW...to prove that he actually existed....

"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, "

                                               -Cornelius Tacitus "Annals"[Christus is actually another spelling for Christ] Cornelius was a roman historian that old or Nero persecuting Christians. He was not a Christian, but actually openly mocked them. but he WROTE ABOUT JESUS...PERIOD...   "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."                                                            -Flavius Josephus "Antiquities"Josephus was a Jewish historian who became commander of Jewish forces in Galilee in AD 66 which is just after Christs time. He also write about James and ow he was put to death in AD 62 Then ther is Mara Bar-Serapion who wrote a letter o his son in AD 73 & refers to Jesus as the King of Jews & that they (he Jews) had crusified him. & both Thullus & Phlegon confirmed that the earth became darker when Jesus Christ was crusified. SO...Here is plenty of historical & logical explantions as to why Jesus exists. Now please if you still think that your evidence beats mine please feel free to share it with me...My name is Kaylamy e-mail is [email protected]

 

 

"No, since John lived until almost 100 AD, and Matthew's was written 80 AD at the latest, with the 60's or early 70's being more likely, and while we don't know when he died, we do know of most of the deaths of "major players" that happened prior to 70 AD, like Steven (34 AD), James (44 AD), and Paul (67 AD). Had Matthew died prior to 70 AD or so, the facts would probably be known to us. "

Wow, those are some good life spans for back then, so John lived till around 120 years old or so in a time when the everage life expectancy would be <50?

I read the bible and saw the light! It is a load of rubbish. I can't believe anyone would believe it. Not only that, the story is horrifying. Who would follow such a cruel god except out of fear (as he commands).

Nice thread, Sapient, I can't believe how riled up you got them with just a couple of simple statements.