*Alert* New Christian Member detected - depose now:

unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
*Alert* New Christian Member detected - depose now:

OK... I'm here now. I can reasonably and rationally answer your questions about God & the Bible - in that the Holy Spirit of God lives within me - and He's pretty smart.

Go!

(dibs! Burden of Proof)

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
(( I gotta drive home from

(( I gotta drive home from work -- I'll be back on later... don't flood me!! )) thanks guys!

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
"There is no proof that the

"There is no proof that the Bible is wrong in it's account of Mary.  The burden to disprove the historical record is on those who dispute it.   We can't both have the burden of proof.  The Bible is not an assertion: it is true."

 

You love this dyslexic burden of proof argument, don't you. Anyway, The historicity of the bible has been question by many people, and most of them were not atheists.  The main problem is that you seem to be forgetting that the books of the bible was transmitted by word of mouth for at least 70 years at the earliest and as many as a couple of hundred for the longest.  This does not make a eye-witness account.  This wouldn't even be admissible in a court of law.  It's called hearsay.  

 

 

No Gods, Know Peace.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: Nothing

unixrab wrote:

Nothing in the bible is at any odds with existing knowledge, if that helps you any.

Really? The earth stands unmoving, on a foundation?

Are you sure about that?

I think astronomy disagrees.

Quote:

My bubble isn't burst, but you can't discount the bible on the basis of bias - that's not fair. The bible is not just an assertion, it's truth.

You're dedicated to asserting this, damn the reality, aren't you?

 

Read this:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm

Critical scholarship has long reached the conclusion that the later Gospels have basically reworked the earliest version, the one we know as Mark.

Most importantly, those reworkings (“redactions”) of Mark were governed by specific and identifiable interests held by the later evangelists and the communities they lived in. These interests included such things as their particular theologies, rituals, outlook toward the Jews, the makeup of their communities, and so on. In other words, the characteristics of each evangelist’s own redaction of Mark, and the manner in which he has added extra material to it (such as Q), are consistent with a particular set of conditions and attitudes we can identify from the text. This rules out traditional assumptions that differences between the Gospels were due to differing traditions each community had inherited, or to individual styles of expression by the writers. Rather, each evangelist was consciously tailoring his sources to conform to the picture he wanted to create, to the principles he wanted to embody, to the lessons he sought to impart to his readership. The same holds true for the picture created by a critical analysis of Mark. He, too, conforms to a consistent set of motifs and editorial interests.

It is clear from this that a concern for historical accuracy played no part in the creation of the Gospels. The principle of eyewitness, perhaps even of representing history at all, was simply not operating. This is a chain of original storytelling, not a reproduction or editing of earlier tradition. Literary criticism reveals Mark as writing most of his Gospel out of his own imagination (drawing mostly on scriptural elements), while his redactors are recasting his efforts for their own purposes, with no concerns about compromising or falsifying historical truth or accuracy. That there was vast fabrication by all involved throughout the Christian documentary record has long been undeniable, and there is no reason to make any distinction in reliability between canonical and non-canonical writings

 

Now take a look at this page:

 

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

 

This cite examines the book of "Mark" in depth, and shows that the book is a midrash of the Old Testament.... a reworking of OT stories to tell a story about 'Jesus".

This demonstrates that the book of mark is not a historical account, but a story.

And we know that even the original story does not have a post resurrection account. The original greek versions of the book end at 16:8

And it has already been demonstrated that the other 'gospels' all rely on Mark.

Which shows that all 'four' are not eyewitness accounts of anything, but in fact stories built, in part, off of Mark.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:God defines

unixrab wrote:

God defines right and wrong - Truth is not relative. He's made Truth known to us by the Bible.

There's a serious problem here for you. First of all, you can't just call 'dibs' on the burden of proof. If you make a claim that departs from the fallback position, you have to justify it, or concede that you can't

Next,  "god" is negatively defined the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. If this is so, it does mean that he 'defines' right and wrong.

However this also means that he does it by fiat. In other words, there can't be any reason for why decides X is right or wrong, because this 'god' would be responsible for the existence of the reason in the first place.

 

- ps... I've made an entire series of Magic the Gathering atheist cards, I'll speak more to the board about them soon.

 

Quote:

The Bible says murder is wrong. That's all I got for you. It is simplistic - but it comes down to your standard of truth. Absolute or Relativistic.

Oh, really?

"Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you.

- Jeremiah 50:21

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished." - Isaiah 13:9, 13:15


"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..." Ezekiel 32:5


'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'" - Ezekiel 9:5

 

So, if murder is wrong, then your god must be wrong, because he's ordering murder.

 

Now, here's a little problem for you. If you defend 'god's actions through reference to context, you refute yourself.

Welcome to the pincer.

 

By the way, this might seem funny, but welcome to the site! You got me posting a good deal today, so thanks for the interaction. I do hope that you seriously consider the points I made; please don't waste much of your own time simply rejecting the info in my posts. Read them, and consider them. 

 Thanks.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: Except that

unixrab wrote:
Except that you are playing God, disregarding His rules about parenting, and murder and denying your children what you have been given - freewill. But I'll agree you could do all those things, if that's what you want me to say. But sending your kids straight to heaven, denying them choice and free-will, while robbing them of the joys of this life in marrying and having their own children seems wrong to me...as a dad.

Yes, it seems wrong to me too, but it only seems wrong to me because I do not believe in a god or heaven. If I believed there was a god who could at anytime decide that my children were deserving of eternal suffering, then I would have a hard time forming a logical argument for allowing them to live long enough to encounter the possibility of evoking his eternal off kilter sense of justice. If it came down to knowing they would spend eternity in paradise if I killed them, or they had the slightest possibility of eternal suffering if I did not, it is a hard case to make to allow them to take the risk of life. A pointless risk in all reality since a human life amounts to a microscopic portion of an eternity, so small in fact, that it is in any comprehendable sense completely insignificant.  

unixrab wrote:
God defines right and wrong - Truth is not relative. He's made Truth known to us by the Bible. The Bible says murder is wrong. That's all I got for you. It is simplistic - but it comes down to your standard of truth. Absolute or Relativistic.

No truth is not relative, but it is also not defined by any god. My point in showing that I can be acting in an altruistic manner by killing my children is to show that even if there was a god and he was supreme grand poohbah of the universe, I can perform a completely altruistic act that is in direct contradiction to his law. In fact, it is an act of self sacrifice that he himself would not even be selfless enough to commit. 

 

unixrab wrote:
Southern Baptist does not a Christian make, but I am sure, if she was a true follower of Christ, she is very sad that you are headed for hell.. but all is not lost.... you still have time... and I may have been sent to this crazy forum just to tell you that God loves you, and your grandmother wants to see you again....and that despite any youtube video or sin you've committed there is pardon and grace available to you if you will repent and turn from your sin to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ and accept His life.

If one says they are a christian I have no reason to doubt them. In my opinion, if one claims to be a christian and they believe in Jesus Christ as the savior, they are a christian. My grandmother, as far as I knew, was as much a christian as anyone else who claims to be a christian. As with anyone, that is all I have to go by

As for the salvation thing, I realize you think you are being kind but I have no desire to waste my time asking for forgiveness from something that doesn't exist for wrongs I have not committed.  

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Woo hoo!  Made it home...

Woo hoo!  Made it home... it was God's will that I continue shewing the error of your ways...   (it's a joke.  including the spelling)   OK... now then: 

 

NinjaTux wrote:
 

You love this dyslexic burden of proof argument,don't you.

Sadly.  Yes.

NinjaTux wrote:
Anyway, The historicity of the bible has been question by many people, and most of them were not atheists.

Just that it's been questioned is no reason to throw it out --  if the Bible makes claims about some things that there are NO WAY to prove or disprove, that would be one thing, but it also makes claims about things that CAN be proved (History, Geography, Science) it should at least be given an even playing ground to be heard, not dismissed because of bias.  It's a complex and amazing book -- even if one does not believe it's divine properties.  The Bible told of "Assyrians" before "scholars" knew that people existed (for example)

 

The main problem is that you seem to be forgetting that the books of the bible was transmitted by word of mouth for at least 70 years at the earliest and as many as a couple of hundred for the longest. This does not make a eye-witness account. This wouldn't even be admissible in a court of law. It's called hearsay. 

There are manuscript fragments of the gospel of Matthew dated to 34-44 A.D.   God dictated (over a period of 40 days) the books of Moses.  There are as many studies and scholars on both sides as to render this point of debate moot. 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ok .. I'm going to look at

ok .. I'm going to look at todangst's stuff... bee back

 

 


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: There are

unixrab wrote:

There are manuscript fragments of the gospel of Matthew dated to 34-44 A.D.  

Where is your evidence for this claim? It is the first I have heard of it. Give me a book or a website or something so I can look for myself.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
shayne26 wrote: unixrab

shayne26 wrote:
unixrab wrote:

There are manuscript fragments of the gospel of Matthew dated to 34-44 A.D.

Where is your evidence for this claim? It is the first I have heard of it. Give me a book or a website or something so I can look for myself.

The claim is ridiculous on the face of it... not even foaming at the mouth fundies claim such an early existence for any 'matthew' writing..... The claim is self refuting. If such writings existed, Paul would have used and cited them in his writings.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: KSMB

unixrab wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Where is it actually stated what the nature of hell is? Eternal torment and all that crap.

 

 

Mark.  Chapter 9: 44-48 talks about the fire never being quenched. But Revelation 20:10 is the quentessential one. " And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. "

In Mark 9: 44-48 Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. Smiling


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: shayne26

todangst wrote:
shayne26 wrote:
unixrab wrote:

There are manuscript fragments of the gospel of Matthew dated to 34-44 A.D.

Where is your evidence for this claim? It is the first I have heard of it. Give me a book or a website or something so I can look for myself.

The claim is ridiculous on the face of it... not even foaming at the mouth fundies claim such an early existence for any 'matthew' writing..... The claim is self refuting. If such writings existed, Paul would have used and cited them in his writings.

 

I agree. I am hoping he will provide some evidence anyway. If Matthew was indeed as early as he claims, why didn't Paul ever quote Matthew or any of Jesus's sayings? Obviously because it hadn't been written yet.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
shayne26 wrote: I agree. I

shayne26 wrote:

I agree. I am hoping he will provide some evidence anyway. If Matthew was indeed as early as he claims, why didn't Paul ever quote Matthew or any of Jesus's sayings? Obviously because it hadn't been written yet.

 

There are 24,633 of these MSS and translations. This makes the NT the hands down winner regarding the vast amount of copies. Just to show how incredible this number is, the second place finisher is Homer's Iliad with 643 ancient copies. If you were to take away the early and ancient translations of the NT and only count the very oldest Greek manuscripts, the NT still ends up knocking out the competition with 5686 copies.

 

Regarding the earliest writings, I am, of course, referring to Thiede --- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,135738,00.html

 

Plenty has been written for and against fragment evidence but -- c'mon... some of you guys have Socrates and Plato in your signatures... and we have fewer than 50 copies that are dated to more than 1000 years AFTER those guys wrote... you gotta give credit where credit is due!

 

"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and quotations from it in the oldest writers of the church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world." (Kenyon)

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist wrote: In

American Atheist wrote:

In Mark 9: 44-48 Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. Smiling

 

Nah... 1.)  That's not what he said...he said it's "BETTER" than Hell... B.) study "hyperbole"

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: As for the

Vessel wrote:

As for the salvation thing, I realize you think you are being kind but I have no desire to waste my time asking for forgiveness from something that doesn't exist for wrongs I have not committed.

 

 

I respect that Vessel.  Thank you for the great discussion.  I appreciate the time you took and wish you the best -  You've been more than gracious.

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
  There are presently 5,686

  There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.  

Author2 Date
Written
Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between  original & copy

Number of Copies

Accuracy of Copies
 Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C.   1100 yrs 2 ----
 Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
 Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
 Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
 Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
 Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
 Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
 Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
 Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
 Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
 Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
 Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
 Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
 Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
 Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
 New
 Testament
1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
 (c. 130 A.D. f.)
less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

      As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.  
      Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century.  If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.  This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings.  In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out.  But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.  (http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm)

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: unixrab

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:

God defines right and wrong - Truth is not relative. He's made Truth known to us by the Bible.

There's a serious problem here for you. First of all, you can't just call 'dibs' on the burden of proof.

 

WHAT?! Smiling

 

todangst wrote:
If you make a claim that departs from the fallback position, you have to justify it, or concede that you can't

That is *not* how logic works. Goodness... the Burden of Proof rests upon the naysayer. The Bible is "innocent" until PROVEN guilty. (innocent meaning "perfectly true in every way and way totally awesome&quotEye-wink {that may be a loose definition}


todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
The Bible says murder is wrong. That's all I got for you. It is simplistic - but it comes down to your standard of truth. Absolute or Relativistic.

Oh, really?

yes.

todangst wrote:

"Slay <snip> Jeremiah 50:21

"Behold the day of the Lord <snip> Isaiah 13:9, 13:15


"I will strew <snip> Ezekiel 32:5


'Pass through the city <snip>'" - Ezekiel 9:5

 

So, if murder is wrong, then your god must be wrong, because he's ordering murder.

 

Murder is the unauthorized or unjustified killing of another person . God cannot "murder" God is the creator, sustainer and withdrawer of life at His righteous (read: perfect) discretion. Killing is not wrong per se.

 

todangst wrote:
Now, here's a little problem for you. If you defend 'god's actions through reference to context, you refute yourself.

Welcome to the pincer.

 

um.... ok. Thanks. Context? I'm kinda lost on that one.

 

todangst wrote:
By the way, this might seem funny, but welcome to the site! You got me posting a good deal today, so thanks for the interaction. I do hope that you seriously consider the points I made; please don't waste much of your own time simply rejecting the info in my posts. Read them, and consider them.

Thanks.

 

 

Hey.. thanks. I'm flattered actually.. you have a huge reputation on this site. I read and considered. But I got this "mind disorder" thing going. Evil

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: The dating

todangst wrote:

The dating of the origin of the 'four' 'gospels' (notice how I have to put everything in 'questionable quotes&#39Eye-wink all are very likely to be after the fall of the temple in jeruseulm:

  • Mark: c. 70–73
  • Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
  • John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

There's no rational way that anyone could suppose that any of these works, appearing decades after the supposed time of 'jesus' could be an eyewitness account.

Why? Because they were not written the very *SECOND* that the events happened???? Court cases have witnesses testifying YEARS after some events... Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance... and 30 years today is a much "longer" period than during the first century (relativistically) -- People (today) barely remember what Regan or Clinton did as president, but 30 years, in the first century was just a trip around the empire and back.

 

todangst wrote:
Furthermore, there's good reason to hold that matthew, luke, and john to a lesser extent, merely build off of Mark, which again contradicts the idea that matthew/luke/john are eyewitness accounts of anything.

And if you knew anything about the book of Mark, you'd know that any resurrection claims found in chapter 16 are later interpolations.. they do not appear in the earliest greek versions of mark.

I do know "something" about Mark. But "earliest" is not a synonym of "best" in textual criticism. The majority MSS rules.

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely wrong here. All of these 'gospels's are known to be anonymous,

 

Wait. Wait. Wait. You're telling me no one disputes this except me, the crazy wacko guy living in that cave, and Sasquatch???

Me thinks that thou shouldst not paint with such wide brush strokes. That's a little over the top.

 

 

todangst wrote:

ergo the names attached to them do make them forgeries of one sort. They are NOT written by the names attributed to them.

No. My inerrant Holy Bible clearly states "The Gospel according to St. Matthew." Now why would it say that? Jawdropping!

 

todangst wrote:

Again, you're flat out wrong. The Matthew author invalidates himself as an eyewitness:

In chapter 27, "Matthew" writes:

27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Unto this day... i.e. even until this time. I.e., this is being written many years after the supposed event.

whoa. What if Matthew only meant until the Wednesday that he wrote it?? You failed to convince me why it has to be "many years" ???


 

todangst wrote:

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation. Please learn more before responding with such certainty.

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation.

(that works good!)

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: There are

unixrab wrote:

There are 24,633 of these MSS and translations. This makes the NT the hands down winner regarding the vast amount of copies. Just to show how incredible this number is, the second place finisher is Homer's Iliad with 643 ancient copies. If you were to take away the early and ancient translations of the NT and only count the very oldest Greek manuscripts, the NT still ends up knocking out the competition with 5686 copies.

This is supposed to mean what? All it means is that Christians copied their texts more and preserved them. This is not an argument for authenticity.

Quote:

Regarding the earliest writings, I am, of course, referring to Thiede --- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,135738,00.html

You said that Matthew was dated to around 33-34 AD. This article gives the dating to around 80. Read it again.

Quote:

Plenty has been written for and against fragment evidence but -- c'mon... some of you guys have Socrates and Plato in your signatures... and we have fewer than 50 copies that are dated to more than 1000 years AFTER those guys wrote... you gotta give credit where credit is due!

Once again the sheer volume of copies is not evidence for accuracy or truth. Christians were not copying Socrates they were copying scripture.

No one has ever argued against the abilities of Christians to copy their texts.

NOTE- All these copies of the NT that we have and no two are exactly the same. This does mean Christians were not very good at copying or were intentionally changing the text. A very good book on this is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. You should read it.

Quote:

"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and quotations from it in the oldest writers of the church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world." (Kenyon)

What are you arguing for? That in all these copies of the NT, of which are all different, somewhere the real passages have been copied? How do you know you are reading the right ones now? You would have done better to have left that last quote out.


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There are presently

Quote:

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.  
Author2Date
Written
Earliest CopyApproximate Time Span between  original & copy

Number of Copies

Accuracy of Copies
 Lucretiusdied 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs2----
 Pliny61-113 A.D.850 A.D.750 yrs7----
 Plato427-347 B.C.900 A.D.1200 yrs7----
 Demosthenes4th Cent. B.C.1100 A.D.800 yrs8----
 Herodotus480-425 B.C.900 A.D.1300 yrs8----
 Suetonius75-160 A.D.950 A.D.800 yrs8----
 Thucydides460-400 B.C.900 A.D.1300 yrs8----
 Euripides480-406 B.C.1100 A.D.1300 yrs9----
 Aristophanes450-385 B.C.900 A.D.120010----
 Caesar100-44 B.C.900 A.D.100010----
 Livy59 BC-AD 17----???20----
 Tacituscirca 100 A.D.1100 A.D.1000 yrs20----
 Aristotle384-322 B.C.1100 A.D.140049----
 Sophocles496-406 B.C.1000 A.D.1400 yrs193----
 Homer (Iliad)900 B.C.400 B.C.500 yrs64395%
 New
 Testament
1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.2nd Cent. A.D.
 (c. 130 A.D. f.)
less than 100 years560099.5%

      As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.  
      Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century.  If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.  This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings.  In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out.  But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.  (http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm)

This is nothing more than propaganda and does not stand up to peer review. Notice how they did not give you evidence for their claim that the texts are 99.5% accurate? If you would like to read a PEER REVIEWED book on the subject read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart Ehrman. He demonstrates (unlike the article you quoted) how the copies that we have are not at all accurate (especially not 99.5%). You should try to stick to "scholarly" material and not get your information from a christian apologetics propaganda mill.

Once again, in a previous post you claimed there are manuscripts pieces of the Gospel of Matthew dated to 33-34 AD. In the chart here it states the oldest copy we have of a NT manuscript is from the 2nd century. Will you now acknowledge you were refuted? You refuted yourself actually.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: "How

unixrab wrote:

"How uncaring would I have to be to allow even the slightest possibility"

 

It's not your choice unfortunately.  You can't choose which rules you want to follow (love & protect your children) and which ones are optional (do not murder) --  They are not "yours" anyway.  Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author. 

I got this far before I couldn't stop laughing anymore. It IS his choice. He CAN choose what rules he wants to follow. Isn't that the whole point of this free will concept?

Your genetic code doesn't belong to you? If you can't own yourself, then it would follow that you can't own anything. Which means every church to ever exist has been in direct violation of the rules. Our whole society would appear to be based on a lie! I should take your house. It doesn't belong to you anyway. And I can find a better use for it than yourself. In fact, I should clone you without your consent. After all, god said I can.

Quote:

dibs meant your side has the burden of proof

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way my friend. You're trying to make me believe in something that doesn't exist, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I'm going to have to stop here or be at risk of falling off my chair laughing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: OK... I'm

unixrab wrote:
OK... I'm here now. I can reasonably and rationally answer your questions about God & the Bible - in that the Holy Spirit of God lives within me - and He's pretty smart. Go! (dibs! Burden of Proof)

 

Lol ok, I have a few questions.

 

If the Bible were inspired and infallible, have you ever wondered why it describes insects as having FOUR legs, the Sun revolving around the Earth, different accounts of Jesus' last words, different accounts of Paul's conversion, the empty tomb of Jesus, what it takes to be saved, how many people God killed after King David ordered the census, which creation account is correct, where Cain and Abel got their wives and just who Cain was afraid of being killed by when God banished him if the only people on earth were his kin. How did anyone know what Jesus' words to his "father" were when he was praying ALONE in the Garden of Gethsemane? How did Moses write of his own death if he wrote the first five books of the Bible? Why was the gospel of John so highly disputed and why did it almost not make into the Bible as we know it? Why didn't Jesus have people write down what he was saying WHEN HE SAID IT instead of having the first gospels written many decades after his death when all eyewitnesses were DEAD. Why does Paul's opinion of salvation differ so greatly from Jesus'? Why does James claim that we are justified by our "WORKS" while Paul is adamant that is only by faith that one is justified?


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: American

unixrab wrote:
American Atheist wrote:

In Mark 9: 44-48 Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. Smiling

 

Nah... 1.)  That's not what he said...he said it's "BETTER" than Hell... B.) study "hyperbole"

 

 

What kind of hyperbole is that?

 "He was as tall as a mountain" is a hyperbole.

But Jesus is telling us to cut off our hands. Why?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: That is

unixrab wrote:
That is *not* how logic works. Goodness... the Burden of Proof rests upon the naysayer. The Bible is "innocent" until PROVEN guilty. (innocent meaning "perfectly true in every way and way totally awesome&quotEye-wink {that may be a loose definition}

"The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a hypothesis must be true, solely on the grounds that it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea."

In this case "the bible being perfectly true in every way and way totally awesome" is what must be proven.

 

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:

unixrab wrote:
todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:

God defines right and wrong - Truth is not relative. He's made Truth known to us by the Bible.

There's a serious problem here for you. First of all, you can't just call 'dibs' on the burden of proof.

 

WHAT?! Smiling

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something apart from the fallback position. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. This is not the case. You can't assume the truth of a proposition without proof. If we could assume truth until disproven, we would be stuck with the ridiculous conclusion that anything we said to be true, must be true, and would only become false when proven false. Reread the ignorantiam law if you are still confused.

This error, above nearly all others, indicates a lack of knowledge of the tenets of logic. Those who commit it require remedial learning.

todangst wrote:
If you make a claim that departs from the fallback position, you have to justify it, or concede that you can't

Quote:

That is *not* how logic works.

Actually, this is not only how logic 'works', it's what logic *IS*.

Logic is the study of arguments. It examines when a claim (the conclusion) is justified by the premises.

So logic IS about justifying claims. Logic IS about justifying claims that depart from the fallback.


Quote:

Goodness... the Burden of Proof rests upon the naysayer.

Goodness you don't know what logic is. But if you like, I can help. Let's begin with the very foundation of logic itself: The very concept of logic is based on the fact that the burden of proof is on the claimant. That's precisely what logic is.

By the way: I'm a writer on logic. Here's my site:

http://candleinthedark.com/logic.html

I've written on various forms of logic, as well as an examination of logical fallacies.

Quote:

The Bible is "innocent" until PROVEN guilty. (innocent meaning "perfectly true in every way and way totally awesome&quotEye-wink {that may be a loose definition}

This misapplication of jurisprudence is a common error found on internet chat sites. The bible is a set of claims. Are you aware of the burden of proof on claimants in a court of law? Claimants, in a court of law must support their claims. If they fail, their claim is thrown out of court.

todangst wrote:
'Pass through the city <snip>'" - Ezekiel 9:5

 

So, if murder is wrong, then your god must be wrong, because he's ordering murder.

Quote:

Murder is the unauthorized or unjustified killing of another person . God cannot "murder" God is the creator, sustainer and withdrawer of life at His righteous (read: perfect) discretion. Killing is not wrong per se.

You missed the point actually given to you. These quotes involve god ordering the wholesale slaughter of others. So in these instances, "murder is ok" because 'god says so'.

So this seems to put a damper on any claim for objective morality from 'god'. In fact, it seems to make moral claims arbitrary, based on whim.

I'm betting you don't have any idea about the problems contained in Divine command ethics, do you? If you'd like to learn, just ask.

 

todangst wrote:
Now, here's a little problem for you. If you defend 'god's actions through reference to context, you refute yourself.

Welcome to the pincer.

 

Quote:

um.... ok. Thanks. Context? I'm kinda lost on that one.

Here's a newflash for you: you're lost on every response. But kudos to working out your problem this time.

If you want to argue that your god provides you with objective morality, then these objective morals must always be true. If they change due to context, then they become subjective.

 

todangst wrote:
By the way, this might seem funny, but welcome to the site! You got me posting a good deal today, so thanks for the interaction. I do hope that you seriously consider the points I made; please don't waste much of your own time simply rejecting the info in my posts. Read them, and consider them.

Thanks.

 

Quote:

Hey.. thanks. I'm flattered actually.. you have a huge reputation on this site. I read and considered. But I got this "mind disorder" thing going. Evil

Thanks for writing.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:shayne26

unixrab wrote:
shayne26 wrote:

I agree. I am hoping he will provide some evidence anyway. If Matthew was indeed as early as he claims, why didn't Paul ever quote Matthew or any of Jesus's sayings? Obviously because it hadn't been written yet.

 

There are 24,633 of these MSS and translations. This makes the NT the hands down winner regarding the vast amount of copies. Just to show how incredible this number is, the second place finisher is Homer's Iliad with 643 ancient copies. If you were to take away the early and ancient translations of the NT and only count the very oldest Greek manuscripts, the NT still ends up knocking out the competition with 5686 copies.

Even if this is true, you didn't answer his question. All this shows is that there are a lot of copies of the book. If you are using this as a proof of it's truth, you're making an argumentum ad numerum fallacy.

Citing how many copies (differing copies, I might add) of a collection of books exist does nothing to verify the veractiy of what is in the books.  

 

Quote:

Regarding the earliest writings, I am, of course, referring to Thiede --- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,135738,00.html

And of course what you cited doesn't back up your claims for matthew dating to 30s AD! 

New papyrus discoveries, Thiede believes, will eventually prove that all four Gospels, even the problematic one ascribed to John, were written before A.D. 80 rather than during the mid-2nd century. He argues that a scroll fragment unearthed at the Essene community of Qumran in 1972 almost certainly contains a passage from Mark's Gospel and can be accurately dated to A.D. 68. In Thiede's opinion, recent research has established that a papyrus fragment of Luke in a Paris library was written between A.D. 63 and A.D. 67.

 Even if we accept this problematic claim, it doesn't support your initial assertion. 

Quote:

Plenty has been written for and against fragment evidence but -- c'mon... some of you guys have Socrates and Plato in your signatures... and we have fewer than 50 copies that are dated to more than 1000 years AFTER those guys wrote... you gotta give credit where credit is due!

Many errors in thinking abound here.

The works of plato remain works of philosophy, regardless of who wrote them. Shakespeare poetry is Shakespeare poetry, even if we give it another name. 

 A second error: The works of Plato involve ordinary, not extraordinary claims. So comparing the two phenomena is a categorical error. 

 

Quote:

"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and quotations from it in the oldest writers of the church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world." (Kenyon)

Too bad you're not interested in the truth about what's in these books. That these works are mainly redactory, based on original midrash.

 

The idea that the gospels are eyewitness accounts is based mainly on the layman's uncritical acceptance of the words of purported authorities - one's parents, pastors, priests, etc. that the gospels are in face eyewitness accounts.

A critical examination of this commonly held belief shows otherwise. That these four commonly held gospels appear to have an origin in Old Testament stories. The gospels are Midrash, the Jewish practice of drawing on scriptural themes and passages to create new stories and homilies.

Here are some online resources for this argument:

Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

This site does a wonderful job of deconstructing the book of "Mark" and demonstrating that the original source for the work are stories pulled from the Old Testament.

This therefore goes far to invalidate the idea that "Mark" is an eyewitness account of anything.

This argument invalidates any argument for 'prophecies' for it shows that the Old Testament passages only 'predict' occurences in Mark because the stories in Mark were built upon Old Testament passages.

This argument also goes far to invalidate the concept of a 'historical jesus'.


THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN
How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
by Robert M. Price, Prometheus Books, 2003

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm

Price is one of the sources that Turton draws upon. This review of his work demonstrates just how poor the case is for a 'historical jesus'.

From the site:

" It is clear from this that a concern for historical accuracy played no part in the creation of the Gospels. The principle of eyewitness, perhaps even of representing history at all, was simply not operating. This is a chain of original storytelling, not a reproduction or editing of earlier tradition. Literary criticism reveals Mark as writing most of his Gospel out of his own imagination (drawing mostly on scriptural elements), while his redactors are recasting his efforts for their own purposes, with no concerns about compromising or falsifying historical truth or accuracy. That there was vast fabrication by all involved throughout the Christian documentary record has long been undeniable, and there is no reason to make any distinction in reliability between canonical and non-canonical writings."
 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:todangst

unixrab wrote:
todangst wrote:

The dating of the origin of the 'four' 'gospels' (notice how I have to put everything in 'questionable quotes&#39Eye-wink all are very likely to be after the fall of the temple in jeruseulm:

  • Mark: c. 70–73
  • Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
  • John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

There's no rational way that anyone could suppose that any of these works, appearing decades after the supposed time of 'jesus' could be an eyewitness account.

Why? Because they were not written the very *SECOND* that the events happened????

No. Because there is no evidence of any contemporary accounts that the works could draw on. So this late date presents a serious provenance concern.

Quote:

Court cases have witnesses testifying YEARS after some events...

But they make reference to contemporary documents.

 

Quote:

Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance...


Because we have contemporary accounts.

 

I'm betting you don't follow this.

 

todangst wrote:
Furthermore, there's good reason to hold that matthew, luke, and john to a lesser extent, merely build off of Mark, which again contradicts the idea that matthew/luke/john are eyewitness accounts of anything.

And if you knew anything about the book of Mark, you'd know that any resurrection claims found in chapter 16 are later interpolations.. they do not appear in the earliest greek versions of mark.

 

Quote:

I do know "something" about Mark. But "earliest" is not a synonym of "best" in textual criticism.

You're completely missing the actual point before you. If the section does not appear in earlier accounts, then it must be a later creation, without any provenance.

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely wrong here. All of these 'gospels's are known to be anonymous,

 

Quote:

Wait. Wait. Wait. You're telling me no one disputes this except me, the crazy wacko guy living in that cave, and Sasquatch???

I'm telling you that no serious scholar believes that the names attached to the gospels are the 'actual' writers of those works.

 

todangst wrote:

ergo the names attached to them do make them forgeries of one sort. They are NOT written by the names attributed to them.

Quote:

No. My inerrant Holy Bible clearly states "The Gospel according to St. Matthew." Now why would it say that? Jawdropping!

Circular logic fallacy.

 

todangst wrote:

Again, you're flat out wrong. The Matthew author invalidates himself as an eyewitness:

In chapter 27, "Matthew" writes:

27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Unto this day... i.e. even until this time. I.e., this is being written many years after the supposed event.

 

Quote:

whoa. What if Matthew only meant until the Wednesday that he wrote it?? You failed to convince me why it has to be "many years" ???

Sure. Right. Let's try your way of viewing it.

Just five minutes ago, I put my car keys on the table. And there they are, to this very day. 

 Hmm...

 
todangst wrote:

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation. Please learn more before responding with such certainty.

Quote:

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation.

(that works good!)

It only works 'good' if you can demonstrate your point. 

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13674
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: todangst

unixrab wrote:
todangst wrote:

The dating of the origin of the 'four' 'gospels' (notice how I have to put everything in 'questionable quotes&#39Eye-wink all are very likely to be after the fall of the temple in jeruseulm:

  • Mark: c. 70–73
  • Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
  • John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

There's no rational way that anyone could suppose that any of these works, appearing decades after the supposed time of 'jesus' could be an eyewitness account.

Why? Because they were not written the very *SECOND* that the events happened???? Court cases have witnesses testifying YEARS after some events... Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance... and 30 years today is a much "longer" period than during the first century (relativistically) -- People (today) barely remember what Regan or Clinton did as president, but 30 years, in the first century was just a trip around the empire and back.

 

todangst wrote:
Furthermore, there's good reason to hold that matthew, luke, and john to a lesser extent, merely build off of Mark, which again contradicts the idea that matthew/luke/john are eyewitness accounts of anything.

And if you knew anything about the book of Mark, you'd know that any resurrection claims found in chapter 16 are later interpolations.. they do not appear in the earliest greek versions of mark.

I do know "something" about Mark. But "earliest" is not a synonym of "best" in textual criticism. The majority MSS rules.

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely wrong here. All of these 'gospels's are known to be anonymous,

 

Wait. Wait. Wait. You're telling me no one disputes this except me, the crazy wacko guy living in that cave, and Sasquatch???

Me thinks that thou shouldst not paint with such wide brush strokes. That's a little over the top.

 

 

todangst wrote:

ergo the names attached to them do make them forgeries of one sort. They are NOT written by the names attributed to them.

No. My inerrant Holy Bible clearly states "The Gospel according to St. Matthew." Now why would it say that? Jawdropping!

 

todangst wrote:

Again, you're flat out wrong. The Matthew author invalidates himself as an eyewitness:

In chapter 27, "Matthew" writes:

27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Unto this day... i.e. even until this time. I.e., this is being written many years after the supposed event.

whoa. What if Matthew only meant until the Wednesday that he wrote it?? You failed to convince me why it has to be "many years" ???


 

todangst wrote:

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation. Please learn more before responding with such certainty.

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation.

(that works good!)

 

You will go to any length to justify myth wont you? Typical.

I've got the most copies of fiction so therefor I WIN!

You, "Maybe just maybe they waited to write it down"

WTF?

This is how daddy handles humanity? "Dont take any notes"

And for what? So that people like you can continue to justify claims of talking donkys and talking snakes and humans "poof" instantaniously coming from dirt, gosts getting girls pregnant? Is this why it took so long for an all powefull being to take over 1,000 years from OT to NT to use 40 authors leaving some books out?

YOUR DAD, as Ricky Ricardo would say, "Jebus, you have some splaning to do". 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Interview: Carsten Peter

Interview: Carsten Peter Thiede
When Was the New Testament Written?

by John Ross Schroeder

Biblical scholarship has taken note of fairly recent claims made on behalf of 2,000-year-old papyrus fragments in the Magdalen College Library at Oxford, England. Perhaps the most ancient fragments of the New Testament in existence, to some observers this papyrus supports the contention that Matthew's Gospel is an eyewitness account.

Named Magdalen GR 17, this discovery may change the way the New Testament itself is viewed by some scholars. Because the handwriting reflects a style current in the first century before Christ, but which may have died out during the middle of the first century after Christ, some scholars say they have good reason to believe that parts of the New Testament were written much earlier than liberal modern scholarship had supposed. If this dating is accurate, the inescapable conclusion is that the four Gospels were composed by authors who remembered Jesus Christ from personal experience or knew eyewitnesses who remembered Him.

German papyrologist Carsten Peter Thiede made this important discovery in 1994. Professor Thiede is director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany. He is a lecturer at the University of Geneva, Switzerland (since 1978), and a life member of the Institute of Germanic Studies, University of London.

GN: Your book, The Jesus Papyrus, concerns itself with the reliability and authenticity of the very origins of Christianity. Do you believe that your discoveries have helped prove that the book of Matthew was written as soon as 20 or 30 years after the crucifixion?  (unixrab notes:  if Jesus was born in 4-6 BC as is usually the date ascribed with historical date/calendar correction and died @ 33 years of age (appx AD 29) 20 years more is AD 49(or so)  )

CPT: Yes. In fact, the redating of those papyrus fragments would show that the Gospel of Matthew must have been written some time before the mid-60s of the first century. You see, those fragments are copies; they are from a codex [an early manuscript book], which means that there must have been scrolls before the codex was written. And one of those scrolls must have been the original Gospel of Matthew. So we definitely reach a period before the mid-60s for the original Gospel of Matthew.

GN:Do you believe that the New Testament is essentially an eyewitness account and not a second-century version of an oral tradition?

CPT: The Gospels are accounts that go back to the time of the eyewitnesses. I don't think there can be any historical doubt about this, irrespective of papyri. There are numerous reasons-historical, textual, critical, literary, historical reasons-for a dating of the Gospels to the period of the eyewitnesses.

Now, no historian would say that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Not even the earliest Church historians claimed as much. For example, Mark's Gospel was written-according to a reliable very early tradition-by a companion, a disciple of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. So you have a secondhand eyewitness account. Luke says in his Gospel and in Acts that he wrote on the basis of eyewitness accounts. He interviewed eyewitnesses and collected written material on the basis of eyewitness accounts, and from this he wrote his own historical Gospel.

The only two Gospels that may be in the strict sense of the term eyewitness Gospels are Matthew-because he, according to a reliable tradition, was in fact the disciple Levi Matthew-and the Gospel of John, where the author himself and his epilogue at the end of the Gospel both say quite clearly that this was an eyewitness who wrote that Gospel.

So we can say that all four Gospels and the book of Acts were written during the eyewitness period-during the time when eyewitnesses were there, could comment on the text, could correct what was written, could refute it or accept it.

GN:How important is the science of papyrology in determining the authenticity and age of biblical texts?

CPT: Papyrology is a very important science as far as establishing the safe-keeping of the oldest records is concerned. There is nothing older as far as the New Testament is concerned, or indeed classical literature, than the oldest papyri. Establishing them, rediscovering them, analyzing them, translating them, making them available to textual critics-to New Testament scholars in our case-is absolutely vital.

In that sense, papyrology is a determining factor in the analysis of the origins and dating of the New Testament, but one should always admit at the same time that you could study the historicity of the New Testament studies without papyrology. It's one of many elements, but it's not as though without papyri you couldn't analyze the New Testament.

GN:Do you think that The Jesus Papyrus strikes quite a blow for the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and the traditions surrounding them?

CPT: Yes, indeed. It's an important supplement to the archaeological and historical material which we already have. The reason some people call that papyrus "The Jesus Papyrus" is in fact because those tiny scraps, three of them, contain no fewer than four different sayings of Jesus. Seven times Jesus plays a role on these three tiny scraps, and they correct in a very decisive manner the majority assumption of modern New Testament scholarship as to the origins of the Gospels as historical texts.

GN: How can a few verses in Greek from the book of Matthew really prove that the whole book was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses?

CPT: Such an assessment depends on the date of the script and on what is actually on the fragments. People would usually talk mainly about the date, but perhaps more important in order to understand what it really all means is what's on the fragments. Those three fragments contain passages from chapter 26 of Matthew's Gospel. There are two other fragments which belonged at one stage to the same codex-to the same original book-and they are now in Barcelona, Spain, with passages from chapters 3 and 5. At one time in Egypt [where all the fragments were discovered] they were part of the same book; now the fragments are split between Barcelona and Oxford.

Those Barcelona fragments are not quite as important as those in Oxford, because there is less textual information in them, but the important thing is that they belong to chapters 3 and 5 of Matthew's Gospel. So, with fragments from chapters 3, 5 and 26, you can show that these fragments originally did not belong to an early source of the Gospels, but to a complete, full, finished Gospel.

And, if you can date a codex copy of a finished Gospel to the mid-60s, that of course means that the complete Gospel must have been earlier still. In other words, we do date back to the eyewitness period with those particular fragments.

GN: Based on some of your discoveries, would you say, then, that there is no real gap between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith-that the four Gospel accounts are reliable historical documents?

CPT: Contrary to popular opinion, the Gospels do claim to be historical documents and were expected to be understood as historical documents. Luke says so in quite unmistakable terms, and the others say it less directly.

What the Gospels are about is, first of all, telling the story of the historical Jesus. In fact, Luke says, to paraphrase his prologue, "Theophilus, you are already a believer, you are beginning the first steps on your way of faith, and now I'm writing this Gospel, dedicating it to you, so that you have the historical groundwork and basis for your faith." This means that faith is an element of the Gospels, but the historical aspect of who Jesus was and what He did is of equal importance.

What a Gospel says, particularly Luke in his prologue, is a statement made by a historian who wants his work to be understood as part of classical historical writing. It's the same technique and attitude that was displayed by any Roman or Greek historian of the time: the combination of a message with its historical basis. They commonly employed this technique, and Luke was no exception.

Tacitus, for example, is a Roman historian who mentions Jesus and Pontius Pilate. He wrote the history of the Romans in Britain, a work called Agricola. But, first of all, Agricola is a work about the achievements and the greatness of his own father-in-law, Agricola; hence the title of that book. No historian today would say because he praises the achievements of Agricola, who was the procurator of Roman Britain at the time, that it cannot be reliable history.

This combination of a message, like Tacitus praising the glory of the achievements of a father-in-law with sober historical writing, was no contradiction in terms at the time, and this is the attitude displayed by the Gospels.

GN: Aside from papyrology, what other arguments are there to show that the Gospel of Matthew was written before A.D. 70, the date of the fall of Jerusalem?

CPT: The fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple, in A.D. 70 is a watershed event. But by that time, probably already in A.D. 66, the first Christian community had left Jerusalem. And indeed the leader of that community, James the brother of the Lord, had been stoned to death in 62.

Any historian would accept that Luke's Acts of the Apostles was written before the year 62. I for one don't understand why some theologians can't accept this; this dating is pure and straightforward historical logic:

One of the threads running through that book of Acts is martyrdom and telling the story of people who were ready to suffer for the Lord, beginning with Jesus and continuing with Stephen being executed in 35.

One of the other most disruptive events in the history of the first Christian community was the stoning of the brother of the Lord, James, in 62. We know this because a reliable historian-reliable in the sense that he wasn't someone who wanted to prove Christianity right at all costs-the Jewish historian Josephus, mentions this stoning and gives us the year.

A few years later, about 64-65 and at the latest in 67, Peter and Paul were executed, martyred after the fire of Rome. None of these events is mentioned in the book of Acts: the death of James, Peter or Paul.

The only sensible explanation is obvious to historians: The book of Acts was written before 62. This, of course, means that the Gospel of Luke must be earlier still, and the Gospels which he used, Mark and Matthew, must be even earlier. So that's a historical and chronological assessment derived from the text itself.

Let me give you one other example from the Gospel usually regarded as the latest, John. Most people would say this dates to the late first century. Now, consider the archaeological facts we have these days. For example, in John 5:1 he [John] describes the healing of the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda.

John tells the story in the past tense. But then he tells readers where it happened as if saying: "If you want to see where Jesus did this miracle, then go to the Pool of Bethesda; it's still there," and he describes it.

The pool was rediscovered-exactly the way he described it-earlier this century, but it had been destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans. So this account must have been written and was never changed before the year 70. No one after 70 could have written that there still is a pool in Jerusalem called Bethesda. So we have, for the Gospel of John, a historical, archaeological yardstick that indicates it was written before the year 70. And this is only one example of many.

You could go on through the Gospels without any papyrus; you would find argument after argument, pointer after pointer-archaeological, historical, literary, cultural, linguistic-for a date of all the Gospels and Acts before A.D. 70 and indeed much earlier.

GN:You mention in your book that Matthew Levi was an important customs official. Is there any doubt in your mind that he wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

CPT: From papyrology you can't prove or disprove that Levi Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Even if everyone accepts that the redating of the papyrus at Oxford is correct, and all the consequences do point to a date of Matthew's Gospel in the late 50s at the latest, then we still couldn't prove via this avenue that Matthew was the author.

However, there are those indications in early history about the authorship of that Gospel, and they all, without any exception, agree that Levi Matthew was the author of the Gospel.

If you accept this, then of course you will find additional information. For example, there are a number of very long speeches in Matthew's Gospel. You may wonder where they come from. Modern critical theologians would say they were all put together decades after the event, basically invented from scraps of information here and there.

Anyone taking classical history seriously would ask why anyone should make that assumption. If we believe that there was an individual, Matthew Levi, who also was a disciple and who was a tax official in Galilee, we know that such a person would be capable of writing shorthand. This was part of his professional skills. People like him at this time in Galilee, Palestine, Egypt, Rome and Greece knew shorthand.

The most probable scenario is that Matthew was there, an eyewitness who made shorthand notes of what Jesus said. The first complete Gospel-and I think that's one of the very few areas where there is almost unanimous agreement-is Mark. When Matthew got it, he could use his own shorthand notes of the sayings and incorporate them into his improved, enlarged, augmented version of Mark's Gospel. Thus we have the Gospel of Matthew, which includes all those long speeches missing from Mark.

So the simple answer, the historical answer-and most historical answers are simple and straightforward-is that Matthew could very well have been the author of that Gospel. There are many more arguments in favor of Matthew's authorship than there are against it.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
shayne26 wrote: Once

shayne26 wrote:

Once again, in a previous post you claimed there are manuscripts pieces of the Gospel of Matthew dated to 33-34 AD.

 

No I didn't.

 

Read it again.

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

Lol ok, I have a few questions.

 

If the Bible were inspired and infallible, have you ever wondered why it describes insects as having FOUR legs,

The word "insect" is not in the authorized bible.

 

American Atheist wrote:
the Sun revolving around the Earth,

it does not say that.

American Atheist wrote:
different accounts of Jesus' last words

These were Jesus Last words: He cried out (loudly) "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit .......(then bowed his head and said more softly) "... .it is finished." What's hard about that?

American Atheist wrote:
different accounts of Paul's conversion, the empty tomb of Jesus, what it takes to be saved,

I see no disparity in any of these... !! Each passage mentions some info about the situations or summarizes, but none say "this is the end-all-be-all of information, there is no other information to be had...

 

American Atheist wrote:
how many people God killed after King David ordered the census,

In "one day" or total?

American Atheist wrote:
which creation account is correct,
all of them.

 

American Atheist wrote:
where Cain and Abel got their wives and just who Cain was afraid of being killed by when God banished him if the only people on earth were his kin.
You answered both: "kin"

 

 

American Atheist wrote:
How did anyone know what Jesus' words to his "father" were when he was praying ALONE in the Garden of Gethsemane?
Either He, or the Holy Spirit, told them after the fact.

 

American Atheist wrote:
How did Moses write of his own death if he wrote the first five books of the Bible?
Either God revealed that to Moses in prophetic fashion or Joshua wrote the final portions, or the Holy Spirit revealed it to one of them.

 

American Atheist wrote:
Why was the gospel of John so highly disputed and why did it almost not make into the Bible as we know it?

Because it the Gospel that was written to emphasize the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and no one in the enemy camp wants that fact published.

 

American Atheist wrote:
Why didn't Jesus have people write down what he was saying WHEN HE SAID IT instead of having the first gospels written many decades after his death when all eyewitnesses were DEAD.

He most likely did. We only have COPIES dated to around AD34 - 44 (perhaps 49 or 50) or so - the originals (no longer extant) were earlier.  Read the CPT interview above.  They are eyewitness documents (or the time of eye-witnesses)

 

American Atheist wrote:
Why does Paul's opinion of salvation differ so greatly from Jesus'? Why does James claim that we are justified by our "WORKS" while Paul is adamant that is only by faith that one is justified?

Paul is setting out pure doctrine, James is describing a specific situation when a person claims to be a Christian and has no visible evidence of it. You can't just skip over the over-arching disclaimer:

James 2:14 (unixrab version) "Let's say you are in a situation where a guy says he's saved and has no works to back up his mouth...here's how you deal with that." [[ Jas 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ]]

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

What kind of hyperbole is that?

"He was as tall as a mountain" is a hyperbole.

But Jesus is telling us to cut off our hands. Why?

 

That's really unfair to the text... He did not command us to do that,  He merely said (in very eastern-hyperbole) that if you find yourself in a situation with yourself that (despite your best efforts to conquer) continues to defeat you, eliminate the source of the problem - don't destroy your eternal soul for the sake of temporal things.  that's an *IF* in there.  

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: If you make


todangst wrote:
If you make a claim that departs from the fallback position, you have to justify it, or concede that you can't

This works for you because you are allowed to define the fallback position!!! And it is biased. Here is the fundamental flaw in you logic: You do not start with the unbiased position: "I do not know if God exists.. He may or He may not. I will seek to know the truth of His existence" At the very ** least **you will come to an Agnostic position (I admire agnostics)

Your bias is that "There is no God. Prove me wrong." That's illogical and biased. That is a departure from the initial fallback position of Adam, conversing with God and telling his children about those conversations in the Garden of Eden. Everyone conceded that God existed until someone didn't. Because you decided the fallback position is Godlessness - you stack the deck (logically). And you know it.

 

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
The Bible is "innocent" until PROVEN guilty. (innocent meaning "perfectly true in every way and way totally awesome&quotEye-wink {that may be a loose definition}

This misapplication of jurisprudence is a common error found on internet chat sites. The bible is a set of claims. Are you aware of the burden of proof on claimants in a court of law? Claimants, in a court of law must support their claims. If they fail, their claim is thrown out of court.

In other words...there is no ASSUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. -- We are not talking about a civil trial here, but a trial where one party is claiming the other party is guilty of fraud. We must be given the benefit of the assumption of innocence. If you are prosecuting the fact that I am a liar (purgery) - The court starts out ***assuming**** I am not, and sets you about to prove that I am guilty.

 

todangst wrote:
'Pass through the city <snip>'" - Ezekiel 9

You missed the point actually given to you. These quotes involve god ordering the wholesale slaughter of others. So in these instances, "murder is ok" because 'god says so'.

You missed the point... I said "unjustified." God never ordered his agents to kill without cause. In every instance, the people or peoples that met with God's judgement fought against Him or disobeyed His command.

 

 

todangst wrote:
So this seems to put a damper on any claim for objective morality from 'god'. In fact, it seems to make moral claims arbitrary, based on whim.

Far from it. Everywhere God issues judgement on a person or persons in the Bible, it is clear as to why that person deserved it and God's authority to do it (or have it done).

todangst wrote:
I'm betting you don't have any idea about the problems contained in Divine command ethics, do you? If you'd like to learn, just ask.

Who gets to define "ethics" Morality and Ethics without an absolute standard of Truth (capitalized on purpose) are folly - nailing jello to a .... chainlink fence.

 

todangst wrote:

Here's a newflash for you: you're lost on every response. But kudos to working out your problem this time.

Thanks

todangst wrote:

If you want to argue that your god provides you with objective morality, then these objective morals must always be true. If they change due to context, then they become subjective.

 

Oh. In that case: God's objective morality is always true. It is always wrong to take the life of a human being without just cause.

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: unixrab

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:

Court cases have witnesses testifying YEARS after some events...

But they make reference to contemporary documents.

 

I am making no reference to any contemporary document if I go into court and testify that I saw you kill that guy at the 7-11, twenty years ago. I saw you do it. And I recognize you. There is no document that I am referencing.... it's my testimony. (albeit, false in this instance) The court needs only decide if I am credible. My testimony stands on its own.

 

 

 

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance...


Because we have contemporary accounts.

I'm betting you don't follow this.

 

I'm betting that if we lost all the contemporary accounts and all that was left on the earth was me and you... you'd tell me Watergate didn't happen and couldn't be proven. But I know it did. That goes back to at least arriving (honestly, logically) arriving at an agnostic (I can't tell if Watergate happened ---because, Mr. unixrab, all the documents are gone and you have this 'mind disorder' ) whereas, an Atheist position (Watergate didn't happen unless you prove it did) is illogical.

 

 

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely missing the actual point before you. If the section does not appear in earlier accounts, then it must be a later creation, without any provenance.

Unless the earlier accounts were copies of fakes. If there are 10,000 copies that are 500 years old from all over the world, and there is one (yes ONE) copy found in a trash-can that, by chance, dates to 1000 years -- There's a reason they threw it in the trash.. it was corrupt.

 

todangst wrote:

I'm telling you that no serious scholar believes that the names attached to the gospels are the 'actual' writers of those works.

 

My serious scholar can beat up your serious scholar. Now what?

 

todangst wrote:

Sure. Right. Let's try your way of viewing it.

Just five minutes ago, I put my car keys on the table. And there they are, to this very day.

Hmm...

Well..that's not quite right... it would be more like: "4 days ago I saw your response to one of my first posts. And it's still there, as of now."

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You will go

Brian37 wrote:
You will go to any length to justify myth wont you? Typical.

I've got the most copies of fiction so therefor I WIN!

You, "Maybe just maybe they waited to write it down"

WTF?

This is how daddy handles humanity? "Dont take any notes"

And for what? So that people like you can continue to justify claims of talking donkys and talking snakes and humans "poof" instantaniously coming from dirt, gosts getting girls pregnant? Is this why it took so long for an all powefull being to take over 1,000 years from OT to NT to use 40 authors leaving some books out?

YOUR DAD, as Ricky Ricardo would say, "Jebus, you have some splaning to do".

 

 

I'm not feeling very killed with kindness, Brian.   Nevertheless,  as a point of education:  Why do prosecutors and police forces, let some crimes (think drug deals or similar) happen - why does it take them SO LONG to "build a case"   Your "1000 Year" argument is moot when you realize that it could be 500 or 10,000 years, the point *IS* There's a reason for all this "time" between Eternity past and the coming Eternity future, and somethings require time.   This space in-between has a purpose.   Just because you can't see the reason for the time spent building His case - doesn't mean it's not happening.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: todangst

unixrab wrote:
todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:

Court cases have witnesses testifying YEARS after some events...

But they make reference to contemporary documents.

 

I am making no reference to any contemporary document if I go into court and testify that I saw you kill that guy at the 7-11, twenty years ago. I saw you do it. 

That is a contemporary account!

 

 

 

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance...


Because we have contemporary accounts.

I'm betting you don't follow this.

 

Quote:
 

I'm betting that if we lost all the contemporary accounts and all that was left on the earth was me and you... you'd tell me Watergate didn't happen

Wrong.

Quote:
 

and couldn't be proven. But I know it did.

Because you had access to the contemporary accounts.

You're not getting this, are you? 

 

 

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely missing the actual point before you. If the section does not appear in earlier accounts, then it must be a later creation, without any provenance.

 

Quote:
 

Unless the earlier accounts were copies of fakes.

There is NO evidence that anyone had access to earlier accounts.

 

 

todangst wrote:

I'm telling you that no serious scholar believes that the names attached to the gospels are the 'actual' writers of those works.

 

Quote:
 

My serious scholar can beat up your serious scholar. Now what?

If you really don't know this, my condolences to you. You argue in ignorance. 

 So be it. Makes my job easier. 

 

todangst wrote:

Sure. Right. Let's try your way of viewing it.

Just five minutes ago, I put my car keys on the table. And there they are, to this very day.

Hmm...

 

Quote:
 

Well..that's not quite right... it would be more like: "4 days ago I saw your response to one of my first posts. And it's still there, as of now."

No one would say "to this very day' refering to four days ago.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: todangst

unixrab wrote:

todangst wrote:
If you make a claim that departs from the fallback position, you have to justify it, or concede that you can't

This works for you because you are allowed to define the fallback position!!!

No. The fallback position is non belief in a positive assertion.

That's basic logic. It's called the burden of proof.

Violating that is a fallacy, 'shifting the burden of proof'

I think you think that the fallback is that the bible is false. Untrue. That's not the fallback. The fallback is that the bible is unproven. Non belief is the fallback. Not rejection.

Get it?

So the bible is not guilty without a trial. It is 'innocent' in the sense that it gets a fair trial, and is either found 'true' or false' depending on the evidence.

Get it? 

Quote:

And it is biased.

No, it's not biased, it's basic logic. It's foundational to reason itself. If we reject that, we're forced to accept the ridiculous conclusion that any assertion is true, until disproven.

Quote:

Here is the fundamental flaw in you logic: You do not start with the unbiased position: "I do not know if God exists.. He may or He may not. I will seek to know the truth of His existence"

Here is the fundamental flaw in your assumption. I do not start out saying "god does not exist." The  allback is non belief.

Quote:

At the very ** least **you will come to an Agnostic position (I admire agnostics)

At the very ** least ** you should first learn what my position actually is before asserting what my position actually is!

At the very ** least ** , you should learn what an 'agnostic' actually means:

http://www.rationalresponder.com/am_I_agnostic_or_atheist

Agnostics are weak atheists. They hold that there is no reason to believe in a god. They disbelieve. Non belief. The fallback.

Ain't that funny, considering what you just said?

You admire them... and they are the ones who hold to the fallback position. 

Quote:

Your bias is that "There is no God. Prove me wrong."

Wrong again. You're the one assuming truth without any grounds!

 

The fallback posisiotn is merely this:  "You have the burden of proof, because you are making a claim."

That's basic logic.

It's foundational to reason itself. If we reject that, we're forced to accept the ridiculous conclusion that any assertion is true, until disproven.

Simply not believing is the fallback. 

Do you see?

 

Quote:

That is a departure from the initial fallback position of Adam, conversing with God and telling his children about those conversations in the Garden of Eden.

This is not a fallback position, this is a claim. The onus on you is prove it.

That's how logic works.

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
The Bible is "innocent" until PROVEN guilty. (innocent meaning "perfectly true in every way and way totally awesome&quotEye-wink {that may be a loose definition}

This misapplication of jurisprudence is a common error found on internet chat sites. The bible is a set of claims. Are you aware of the burden of proof on claimants in a court of law? Claimants, in a court of law must support their claims. If they fail, their claim is thrown out of court.

Quote:

In other words...there is no ASSUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

In other words, you're not following what was just told you. You can't just assume the bible is true! It's not a matter of innocence or guilt in the sense that you use the terms!

 Stop misusing concepts of jurisprudence.

Quote:

-- We are not talking about a civil trial here, but a trial where one party is claiming the other party is guilty of fraud. We must be given the benefit of the assumption of innocence.

Here is your confusion.

If a person holds that the bible is a fraud, the onus is on them to prove it true. Yes.

But the fallback is simply non belief... not outright rejection. That's your mistake.

So to use your terms, the bible is 'innocent until proven guilty' in the sense that we cannot simply reject it outright.

So if you claim that the bible is true, then the onus is on you to prove that. If you claim it is false, then the onus is on you to prove that.

The fallback position is non belief in it's claims.

Do you get it now?

 

todangst wrote:
'Pass through the city <snip>'" - Ezekiel 9

You missed the point actually given to you. These quotes involve god ordering the wholesale slaughter of others. So in these instances, "murder is ok" because 'god says so'.

Quote:

You missed the point... I said "unjustified." God never ordered his agents to kill without cause.

In other words, "murder is ok, because god says so"!

Look up Divine command ethics.  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: That is a

todangst wrote:

That is a contemporary account!

 

You said "document" before. Nevertheless... it wouldn't be a contemporary account if you were reading the court transcript 2000 years later. It would be no less true, however.

 

 

 

todangst wrote:
todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance...


Because we have contemporary accounts.

I'm betting you don't follow this.

 

Quote:

I'm betting that if we lost all the contemporary accounts and all that was left on the earth was me and you... you'd tell me Watergate didn't happen

Wrong.

Quote:

and couldn't be proven. But I know it did.

Because you had access to the contemporary accounts.

You're not getting this, are you?

 

I'm getting it. You aren't. All of Matthew and mark's readers had access to or were *the* contemporary accounts! If all the Contemporary accounts of Watergate were destroyed and me and you were left on the earth, and I wrote down the "Gospel of Watergate According to Unixrab" -- you'd have no proof that Watergate happened past what you have in the book of Mark or Matthew.

 

 

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely missing the actual point before you. If the section does not appear in earlier accounts, then it must be a later creation, without any provenance.

 

Quote:

Unless the earlier accounts were copies of fakes.

todangst wrote:
There is NO evidence that anyone had access to earlier accounts.

 

There's no evidence that they didn't.

 

It's reasonable.

todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

I'm telling you that no serious scholar believes that the names attached to the gospels are the 'actual' writers of those works.

 

Quote:

My serious scholar can beat up your serious scholar. Now what?

If you really don't know this, my condolences to you. You argue in ignorance.

So be it. Makes my job easier.

 

Riiiiiiiight because only non-Christian, Athiests with a predisposition bias against the existence of God can determine who a scholar is. Got it.

 

 

todangst wrote:

Sure. Right. Let's try your way of viewing it.

Just five minutes ago, I put my car keys on the table. And there they are, to this very day.

Hmm...

 

Quote:

Well..that's not quite right... it would be more like: "4 days ago I saw your response to one of my first posts. And it's still there, as of now."

No one would say "to this very day' refering to four days ago.

 

I just did.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: 'Pass

todangst wrote:

'Pass through the city <snip>'" - Ezekiel 9

You missed the point actually given to you. These quotes involve god ordering the wholesale slaughter of others. So in these instances, "murder is ok" because 'god says so'.

Quote:

You missed the point... I said "unjustified." God never ordered his agents to kill without cause.

In other words, "murder is ok, because god says so"!

 

 

 You must differentiate between "killing" and "murder"  -- This is a simple vocabulary issue!

It is not murder the Government...  I mean... the General... I mean... the Court... I mean...God says to kill.    No one "murdered" Ted Bundy.   

 

You are confusing your vocab words.   

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:todangst

unixrab wrote:

You must differentiate between "killing" and "murder" -- This is a simple vocabulary issue!

It is not murder the Government... I mean... the General... I mean... the Court... I mean...God says to kill. No one "murdered" Ted Bundy.

 

You are confusing your vocab words.

No. You're just begging the question that it's not murder, coz god says so.

See?  

Again, go look up Divine Command ethics.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: todangst

unixrab wrote:
todangst wrote:

That is a contemporary account!

 You said "document" before.

Ahem. A document can be a recording of a contemporary account.  We can't listen to Lincoln's words anymore, but they are documented.

Quote:
 

Nevertheless... it wouldn't be a contemporary account if you were reading the court transcript 2000 years later.

 

Yes it would! The account itself is contemporary! It occured at the time of the event. That is what makes it 'contemporary'! 

You really don't get this, do you?

A contemporary account is an account of an event as it occured.

If it is recorded in some fashion, then later historican can call upon it.

Do you get it now? 

Quote:
 

It would be no less true, however.

Provided the original account was true, yes, it wouldn't matter when it was read.

 

todangst wrote:
todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
Could I, now, rewrite Watergate because it's a whole 30 years after the Nixon administration?? Not a chance...


Because we have contemporary accounts.

I'm betting you don't follow this.

 

Quote:

I'm betting that if we lost all the contemporary accounts and all that was left on the earth was me and you... you'd tell me Watergate didn't happen

Wrong.

Quote:

and couldn't be proven. But I know it did.

Because you had access to the contemporary accounts.

You're not getting this, are you?

 

Quote:

I'm getting it. You aren't.

No, my points above prove you don't get it. whereas your assertion is not backed up by anything. You even managed to screw up what a contemporary account IS!

 

Quote:

  All of Matthew and mark's readers had access to or were *the* contemporary accounts!

1) This just begs the question.

2) This does not demonstrate that mark or matthew had access to such accounts or that they used them. 

3) You've obviously ignored the site I sent you to on Mark, which demonstrates its Midrash origins, just as you have ignored the synoptic  problem with Matthew.

If you just keep ignoring these problems, you can't be taken seriously.

I say this for yoru own benefit.

Quote:
 

If all the Contemporary accounts of Watergate were destroyed and me and you were left on the earth, and I wrote down the "Gospel of Watergate According to Unixrab" -- you'd have no proof that Watergate happened past what you have in the book of Mark or Matthew.

No. You would be first hand account (presuming that you are that old) or a second hand account calling upon memory os historical records.  

This establishes a provenance for your claims.

No such provenance exists for matthew or mark. 

See?

Even you have agreed... you just don't follow... yet. 

 

todangst wrote:

You're completely missing the actual point before you. If the section does not appear in earlier accounts, then it must be a later creation, without any provenance.

 

Quote:

Unless the earlier accounts were copies of fakes.

todangst wrote:
There is NO evidence that anyone had access to earlier accounts.

 

Quote:

There's no evidence that they didn't.

Are you serious?

Tell me, did you close your eyes and stamp your feet while saying that?

Quote:

It's reasonable.

No, it's unreasonable. It's the fallacy of arguing to silence. You can't just say 'well, there's no evidence that they didn't, (therefore, they did!).

That's unreasonable.

To make a claim, you have to back it up. 

  
Quote:

Riiiiiiiight because only non-Christian, Athiests with a predisposition bias against the existence of God

Can you please stop with this projection?

You're the one taking a belief on faith, not me.

Quote:
 

...can determine who a scholar is. Got it.

Again, if you wish to remain ignorant and just write off everything as dogmatic naysaying, I can't stop you. 

 
todangst wrote:
 

No one would say "to this very day' refering to four days ago.

 

Quote:
 

I just did.

And you felt pretty ridiculous, right? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

No. The fallback position is non belief in a positive assertion. That's basic logic. It's called the burden of proof.

I think you think that the fallback is that the bible is false. Untrue. That's not the fallback. The fallback is that the bible is unproven. Non belief is the fallback. Not rejection.

Get it?

Got it.

todangst wrote:
So the bible is not guilty without a trial. It is 'innocent' in the sense that it gets a fair trial, and is either found 'true' or false' depending on the evidence.

Get it?

 

Wait, wait... it's "innocent" in the sense that it's "not guilty" ! I am not a liar (I am telling the truth) until proven. Until then, I am assumed to be telling the truth. What I say is true. What the Bible says is true.

todagnst wrote:

And it is biased.

todangst wrote:
No, it's not biased, it's basic logic. It's foundational to reason itself. If we reject that, we're forced to accept the ridiculous conclusion that any assertion is true, until disproven.
Quote:

Just like Data and Picard.

todangst wrote:

Here is the fundamental flaw in you logic: You do not start with the unbiased position: "I do not know if God exists.. He may or He may not. I will seek to know the truth of His existence"

Here is the fundamental flaw in your assumption. I do not start out saying "god does not exist." The allback is non belief.

AAAAA!!! Semantics! Non-belief in God == God does not exist

todangst wrote:
unixrab wrote:
At the very ** least **you will come to an Agnostic position (I admire agnostics)

At the very ** least ** you should first learn what my position actually is before asserting what my position actually is!

Touche'

todangst wrote:
At the very ** least ** , you should learn what an 'agnostic' actually means:

http://www.rationalresponder.com/am_I_agnostic_or_atheist

Not found.

todangst wrote:
Agnostics are weak atheists. They hold that there is no reason to believe in a god. They disbelieve. Non belief. The fallback.

 

 

Ain't that funny, considering what you just said?

You admire them... and they are the ones who hold to the fallback position.

 

No no no! " Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable "

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: shayne26

unixrab wrote:
shayne26 wrote:

Once again, in a previous post you claimed there are manuscripts pieces of the Gospel of Matthew dated to 33-34 AD.

 

No I didn't.

 

Read it again.

 

 

 

OK, I will play your silly game.

In a previous post you claimed there are manuscript fragments from the Gospel According to Matthew dating from 34-44 CE.

You have yet to provide evidence for this.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
shayne26 wrote:   OK, I

shayne26 wrote:

 

OK, I will play your silly game.

In a previous post you claimed there are manuscript fragments from the Gospel According to Matthew dating from 34-44 CE.

You have yet to provide evidence for this.

ugh.. OK.. listen up:  

  • "The situation presupposed by Matthew corresponds to what is known about Christianity in Palestine ***between A.D. 50 and ca. 64***, but not after the flight of the Christians in ca. 64 and the start of the Jewish war in A.D. 66."
  •      - Bo Reicke, "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem" in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, p. 133
  • as seen in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholic critics, in general, ***favor the years 40-45***..." (http://www.google.com/notebook/public/07177265950101148816/BDUU0IgoQraqDkLQh)
  •  In recent times, John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew. He cites almost unanimous agreement by the Church Fathers in placing Matthew before Mark, in addition to internal evidence within the gospels.
  • Furthermore, Carsten Peter Thiede in Eyewitness to Jesus argues for redating the Magdalen papyrus and the Gospel of Matthew to ***before the year 70***. Thiede's expertise as a technical expert in the study of ancient papyrus is recognized even by critics who disagree with this finding. (See, for example, Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 189-190).
  • Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i. e. ***about A.D. 38-45***.
  • Patrizi goes back to ***36-39***
  •  Aberle[dates it ] to ***37***.
  • Belser assigns ***41-42***;
  • Conély, ***40-50***;
  • Schafer, ***50-51***

 I think I'm well within my rights to have said 34 - 44 Anno Domini.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


doubtabout (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
hey unixrab So...where is

hey unixrab

So...where is the evidence for those manuscript fragments from 34-44 CE? Theologians arguing for early dates do not manuscripts make.

doubtabout


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: Wait,

unixrab wrote:
Wait, wait... it's "innocent" in the sense that it's "not guilty" ! I am not a liar (I am telling the truth) until proven. Until then, I am assumed to be telling the truth. What I say is true. What the Bible says is true.

What? I'm not sure if you're aware of what you've actually just said, so I'll say it again for you so you can read it from someone else to make sure this is really what you wanted to say.

"I am telling the truth until proven[otherwise]. Until then, I am assumed to be telling the truth."

To whom does this great privilege apply? Just you? Or can I also make any claim I wish which must be taken as truth?

Perhaps not, perhaps you need many people believing in something to convince you. On those grounds, you're faced with the unavoidable fact that Christianity does not control anything like 50% of the population of the planet. If majority is what it takes, then while atheism is not necessarily right, Christianity is definately wrong.

Perhaps it's yet more than that. Perhaps it just needs to be old and followed for a long period of time. To paraphrase you; should god come by every once in a while to prove his existence? In that respect, it is far more likely that some other ancient religion(which lasted far longer than the piddly 2 or 3 thousand years Christianity has) is true.

If none of these things satisfy the criterion for being assumed to be telling the truth unless *proven* otherwise, please explain what exactly does.

unixrab wrote:
AAAAA!!! Semantics! Non-belief in God == God does not exist.

You are correct in the first, incorrect in the second. The definition of "Semantic" is;
"Of or pertaining to meaning, [especially] in language,"

In that regard, this is an issue of semantics. You take Atheism to mean the opposite as Theism. It does not mean that. Should you wish to, go to google.com and type in define: atheism. You'll find such definitions as yours, but as you'll see from the worst example I'm about to post, just because somebody says something doesn't make it true;
"belief that there is no god and that religion should be suppressed.
www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm"

Even if I can't sway you to believe that you are making the semantic mistake, not I, in claiming that Atheism is the outright denial of even the possibility of a god's existence, I would hope we could agree that Atheists by nature do not believe that religion should be suppressed.

What's more, the word Atheist is(as most people are aware) comprised of the greek prefix a-"without" and the word theos-"deity". Atheist therefore means without deity. Just because I am without belief in god does not mean I have the belief that there is NO god. Those are separate beliefs. How can I illustrate this more clearly for you?

Let us presume we're having an argument. You start the argument by saying "My car is the best car ever made.", I say "I don't believe that is true." What I don't say is "There is no way your car is the best car ever made." If you could provide me with sufficient evidence after claiming your car's superiority, you could sway my belief one way or the other. This does not mean that at the outset I must take your claim to be just as likely to be false as it is to be true.

[Before you respond to this saying that a car being the "best" is subjective; that's not the point, if you replace "the best car ever made" with "can fly", all of the same things hold true. I will still say that I do not believe your car can fly, but I would not say that it is impossible for you to have a flying car. You could still provide me with evidence one way or the other demonstrating that yes, your car can fly, and if it could, I would be forced to change my position. This is the nature of logic and reason.]


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:todangst

unixrab wrote:
todangst wrote:

Get it?

Got it.

Good.

todangst wrote:
So the bible is not guilty without a trial. It is 'innocent' in the sense that it gets a fair trial, and is either found 'true' or false' depending on the evidence.

Get it?

Quote:

Wait, wait... it's "innocent" in the sense that it's "not guilty" ! I am not a liar (I am telling the truth) until proven. Until then, I am assumed to be telling the truth. What I say is true. What the Bible says is true.

No here's where you go astray: Just because you don't assume the bible to be false from the get go, doesn't mean that you get to assume it true.

It merely is unproven.

There's a third option that you keep missing.

todangst wrote:
No, it's not biased, it's basic logic. It's foundational to reason itself. If we reject that, we're forced to accept the ridiculous conclusion that any assertion is true, until disproven.

Quote:

Just like Data and Picard.

Looks like you re just trying to whistle past the graveyard here.... do you accept the point or not? If so, then you recognize the flaw in your claim.

Quote:

AAAAA!!! Semantics! Non-belief in God == God does not exist

Nope. Non belief is simply a lack of belief. It is not a rejection of the claim.

Here's a reductio ad absurdum to refute your claim:

You don't believe in things you've never heard of, this does not mean you reject them outright... you can't, because you've never even heard of them.

todangst wrote:
At the very ** least ** , you should learn what an 'agnostic' actually means:

http://www.rationalresponder.com/am_I_agnostic_or_atheist

Quote:

Not found.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

todangst wrote:
Agnostics are weak atheists. They hold that there is no reason to believe in a god. They disbelieve. Non belief. The fallback.

Ain't that funny, considering what you just said?

You admire them... and they are the ones who hold to the fallback position.

Quote:

No no no!

Yes, yes yes.

Quote:

" Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable "

Now you've reverted to the proper definiton of agnosticism, but previously you were using the colloquial usage that denotes weak atheism!

Want the proof? If we use the proper definition that you are now using, your original contention makes no sense, because by this definition, agnosticism is an epistemological position that has NO RELATION AT ALL TO BELIEF. One can be an agnostic theist.

So you're all over the place here...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


holley
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
question

This is nothing more than propaganda and does not stand up to peer review. Notice how they did not give you evidence for their claim that the texts are 99.5% accurate? If you would like to read a PEER REVIEWED book on the subject read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart Ehrman. He demonstrates (unlike the article you quoted) how the copies that we have are not at all accurate (especially not 99.5%). You should try to stick to "scholarly" material and not get your information from a christian apologetics propaganda mill

 

I'm new here,but it seems if your a Christian and you do research then you would look up your ques./answers/material through christian websites and so forth,right?

If your an atheists it seems you would also do the same,right? or am I wrong?....Since I've been curious to see these other threads and so forth in this site;I've been asking a lot of questions,and doing lots of reading/research myself.People have been sending me sites to look at and answering questions based on their own beliefs.So, as a christian myself I've been looking up lots of info on evolution,big bang theory,and atheists,which by the way all came from atheists from this site.Does that matter?,of course people will naturally do that!!

"History is written by the winners" - WTS


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Can you prove the existance

Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?


Nimitz68
Nimitz68's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-10-29
User is offlineOffline
unixrab, when you first

unixrab, when you first came into the forum did you think that atheists were simply ignortant, or uninformed about your religion?

Were you under the impression that you could enlighten non-believers with scripture?

Did it occur to you that many here may be as well educated, or even more so, about the bible than you?

Do you get the feeling the water might be a bit deeper that you thought when you first jumped in?

 

 

Ever "hang-ten" on the bow of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier at 30+ knots?


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Nimitz68 wrote: unixrab,

Nimitz68 wrote:

unixrab, when you first came into the forum did you think that atheists were simply ignortant, or uninformed about your religion?

Were you under the impression that you could enlighten non-believers with scripture?

Did it occur to you that many here may be as well educated, or even more so, about the bible than you?

Do you get the feeling the water might be a bit deeper that you thought when you first jumped in?

 

 

 

I wanna place myself in unixrab's shoes, since this seems like a thread I would make.

1. No, I just like talking about religion and philosophy.

2. Maybe. Anybody can be enlightened by Scripture, whethernon-believers or not.

3. Sure.

4. Swimming's fun.

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.