Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 10:03 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
(01-11-2012 08:46 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 06:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that animals die, who obviously don't "sin", and that dinosaurs got cancer BEFORE any possible "Adam and Eve"

Animals were not created in the image of God to live forever.

I thought you were telling us you didn't believe in immortality. Make up your mind. "Living forever", is not what theologians mean by "eternal life".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 09:42 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
(01-11-2012 08:44 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  All of our scientific knowledge shows that nothing in those two sentences can possibly be true.

Why do you believe such nonsense?

Because your scientific knowledge has failed me many times and the Bible never has. Your scientific knowledge can't explain why, if our cells keep renewing themselves, why we should die.

The Bible has never failed you? Are you joking? It makes statements about observable phenomenon that are false. Where is the water above the fermiment? Have you cured leprosy by sacrificing a bird and splattering the blood on the infected person? Where is the proof of the global flood? We have a host of other things that it says happend or offers similar advice about. These things never occured, the advice is that of a bronze age, illiterate savage and has little currency when applied to the real world.

Again you take revelation as infallible. Science is a process, information is gathered, tested, reviewed and corrections made when what is observed does not match the we expected.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
01-11-2012, 09:45 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
This is exactly what this section is trying to avoid. You guys aren't making commentary on the debate, you're debating the topic.

Moved to TTOT.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
01-11-2012, 10:02 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
[Image: FinishHim.gif]

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 11:06 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
So far it's not even a debate about the subject at hand, as proposed.
The Theist has posted not one (external) piece of actual evidence that the events recounted in any of the scriptures actually occurred, as recounted in scripture. He's using biased commentators, who had agendas, with good reasons to actually NOT believe them, as the concept of "pious fraud" was well known and well accepted at the time, and many of The Theist's referenced authors actually admitted they engaged in it, including Saul of Tarsus, Jerome, and Eusebius, and Chrysostom. Mark can take care of that, very easily.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  "Matthew, also named as Levi, was the tax collector before becoming one of Jesus' apostles. He is credited for writing the first gospel account. Though he isn't listed as its writer in the account itself, the overwhelming testimony of the early church historians clearly indicate this fact. Papias of Hierapolois (early second century) is one of the earliest.

Assertion, no evidence. Papias was a crony of the self admitted liar, Euseubius, and a Christian believing bishop. Circular argument.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia: "Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin Martyr, by the author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto's Justin Martyr, vol. ii), by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change."


Meaningless. No proof of authorship. "No sudden change" is meaningless. Consistent lies, are consistent lies.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed."

Jerome was a self-admitted liar. I'm sure Mark will deal with this.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Likewise, Origen, quoting Eusibus, says of the Gospel of Matthew that it was "first was written . . . according to Matthew, . . . who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

More self-admitted liars. Many books were written in Hebrew. Irrelevant.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  It is interesting to note that some manuscripts, all from later than the 10th century C.E., have inscriptions at the end of the manuscript which date its writing as 41 C.E.

Proof of nothing. The same scribes who forges Josephus Chapter 18 insertion, could just have easily done these. Christian scribes are known to be untrustworthy.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Mark, also known as John, is credited with the writing of the book of his name. When Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane the naked man who fled was Mark. He was from a well off family in Jerusalem, his mother's home often served for a meeting place for the Christian brothers. (Mark 14:51, 52 / Acts 12:12-13)

Circular. Proof of nothing. No external proof. No reference to "well-off" family, or how he knows this. (Does he EVEN read this shit he copy-pastes in here??)

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Mark wasn't an immediate companion of Jesus. The earliest tradition held that the source of the information Mark wrote came primarily from the apostle Peter. Papias, Origen and Tertullian, for example. Earliest tradition also also indicates it was written sometime between 60 - 65 C.E. All of the leading authorities of the second and third centuries confirm that Mark was the writer.

Assertion. No proofs even offered. "Papias, Origen and Tertullian" are NOT "the earliest traditions" Every scholar knows that. Again he's copy-pasting crap he isn't even reading or thinking about.
Wrong all scholars know it was Q. Q had o resurrection, and no "salvation".
False. No reference, or identification of "leading authorities". They do NOT in fact say this.
"All of the leading authorities of the second and third centuries confirm that Mark was the writer." No evidence offered. More assertions by a non-credentialed person, in this subject.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  John, the apostle Jesus loved, who reclined in front of him at the Last Passover wrote the Gospel bearing his name. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen all of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries C.E. give John as the writer. Eusebius quotes Irenaeus as stating: "John, the disciple of the Lord, who had rested on his breast, himself also gave fourth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

Circular. Liars all. All believers with reasons to lie. No external evidence.


(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  "An important discovery in the 20th century of a manuscript known as the Papyrus Rylands 457 (P52), which contained John 18:31-33, 37, 38 that was circulation in provincial Egypt, where it was found, during the period of 130 - 150 C.E."

Meaningless. The Coptic Gnostics also refute the canonical gospels as they have a married, and even homosexual Yeshua, involved with Mary of Magdala, and the young man in Mark. A find of the Shakespeare plays, by this standard, would confirm the Fairy, in Midsummer Night's Dream.

(01-11-2012 12:19 AM)The Theist Wrote:  "It confirms what we read in the Scriptures, and it also assists in dating certain events by comparing the scriptures to known secular events and astronomical charts."

Confirms nothing. Mark, I'm sure will deal with this very obvious fallacious reasoning flaw. If I cook up a fairy story, and use Julius Caesar's name, it in no way confirms my fairy tale.

Not one piece of evidence so far ... from an external, non-biased source, non-Christian source that can be trusted to not lie, and that what the faith content of the documents affirm is supported in any way, by any evidence, or is any way confirmed as "historical".
Actually, (and I'm sure Mark will get into this), the gospels were not intended as, or in any way "historical" documents.
The very nature of "gospel" is antithetical to "historical", and actually the fact that The Theist does not "get" this is more proof of his ignorance about scripture.

Things don't appear to be going well for Swavy Davey. I guess hope springs eternal. He may yet pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-11-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
(01-11-2012 08:44 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  All of our scientific knowledge shows that nothing in those two sentences can possibly be true.

Why do you believe such nonsense?

Because your scientific knowledge has failed me many times and the Bible never has. Your scientific knowledge can't explain why, if our cells keep renewing themselves, why we should die.

As a matter of fact, it can. Google telomeres or apoptosis.
Only your ignorance has failed you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
02-11-2012, 05:27 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
his·to·ric·i·ty
noun \ˌhis-tə-ˈri-sə-tē\

Definition of HISTORICITY


: historical actuality
First Known Use of HISTORICITY

1880


There is no word for "historical" or a phrase that linguistically corresponds to "historically accurate"in archaic Hebrew. The concept of "historically accurate" was unknown to that culture. The "science of history" or "history done" using history's methods did not exist until the Romans started discussing what it meant. It was debated, in Roman history, when Tacitus berated his contemporaries about what it meant, and their misuse of methods. It's a common error, when discussing other cultures to slap other, or later worldviews, on cultures which actually have no similar content, and assume the other culture was operating according to the readers, or outside, or later worldviews.

The fact is, Hebrew culture was what Anthropologists call a "magical-thinking" culture. Science as a method and assumed worldview was unknown to them. They believed in magical beings, who caused capricious events. In that context, and "miracle" or sightings, or unexplained event has to be viewed in that context. For example the Gospel of Matthew says when Jeebus died there was an earthquake, (which the other authors did not do), rocks were split, the temple curtain was 'rent", and the "bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep went into Jerusalem, and were seen by many. Then it says there was another earthquake on Easter Sunday morning. Roman historians, who recorded every other earhquake at the time, including the Near East never mention this. The Jewish historians never mention a capricious temple curtain event, in THE most importanat monument thet existed in Jerusalem. The Romans did not, and NO one else records the zombie invasion of Jerusalem. Whatever it's about, it's not about "historical" events.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2012, 05:55 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
(01-11-2012 10:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:44 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Because your scientific knowledge has failed me many times and the Bible never has. Your scientific knowledge can't explain why, if our cells keep renewing themselves, why we should die.

As a matter of fact, it can. Google telomeres or apoptosis.
Only your ignorance has failed you.
See post #19 Rolleyes

Keep up, old man!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 07:08 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
Actually it HAS failed him, and countless others, in a sense.
It's not so much that it didn't do the "app for that" ignorance plug in, (god of the gaps),
or "explanation utility", but more that it was used as a "moral reference".
All moral laws in the Bible were appropriated from their culture, and thus are culturally, and morally relative.
In this case, the use of an ancient relative cultural moral paradigm has been used, and in so doing has had tragic
consequences. Human sexuality was not understood in Biblical times. This dude has essentially ruled out the possibility
of a meaningful human relationship, and accepting his own sexuality, secondary to his mis-perception of the origins and meanings of an ancient law code. It's really not the Bible's fault, as the authors of the day knew no more than their ancient Bronze Age cultures.
The failing occurs in the application of an ancient law code, based on ignorance, when there is so much more knowledge available today.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2012, 08:24 AM
RE: Commentary on the Historicity Of The Christian Greek Scriptures Thread
I'm enjoying the debate however it seems as though the posters are being reversed by the forum. The last reply was likely from Mark but it appears in the theists name.

I wouldnt mind a correction by a mod to avoid future confusion.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: