David Lee vs Revenant77x
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2013, 08:15 PM
David Lee vs Revenant77x
Thunderdome rules 2 men enter 1 man leaves Smile

I'll go ahead and start with a question Mr Lee What flavor of theist are you?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
17-06-2013, 09:07 PM
 
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(17-06-2013 08:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Thunderdome rules 2 men enter 1 man leaves Smile

I'll go ahead and start with a question Mr Lee What flavor of theist are you?

This is, uh, a most interesting turn of events. I haven't posted on any forums for some time (relatively speaking) so it is to my surprise that you have invited me to a forum which I myself, directly or inderectly, arguably, I suppose, inspired into being.

I used to post here as The Theist. I didn't mean to deceive anyone, and I'm willing to make any adjustments necessary. I just want to clarify so as not to be accused of being an intentional sock puppet. I just didn't know.

If the moderators would grant me the honor (or dishonor more than likely considering it is an atheist board) of melding my two identities into this current one, since I don't know my password and the email I used is no longer active, that would be cool.

As to Thunder. My flavor is what you make it. Pick your topic.
17-06-2013, 09:21 PM
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(17-06-2013 09:07 PM)David Lee Wrote:  
(17-06-2013 08:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Thunderdome rules 2 men enter 1 man leaves Smile

I'll go ahead and start with a question Mr Lee What flavor of theist are you?

This is, uh, a most interesting turn of events. I haven't posted on any forums for some time (relatively speaking) so it is to my surprise that you have invited me to a forum which I myself, directly or inderectly, arguably, I suppose, inspired into being.

I used to post here as The Theist. I didn't mean to deceive anyone, and I'm willing to make any adjustments necessary. I just want to clarify so as not to be accused of being an intentional sock puppet. I just didn't know.

If the moderators would grant me the honor (or dishonor more than likely considering it is an atheist board) of melding my two identities into this current one, since I don't know my password and the email I used is no longer active, that would be cool.

As to Thunder. My flavor is what you make it. Pick your topic.

Why not delve into the New Testament and why you believe it is in fact truth.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
18-06-2013, 07:16 AM
 
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(17-06-2013 09:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Why not delve into the New Testament and why you believe it is in fact truth.

The gospels were written before 70 C.E., and there isn't anything in them that couldn't have been written from that time period. Usually secular history is written centuries after the events had taken place. Between 20 and 50 years is too slight a period of time to permit any appreciable corruption of the content due to there having been witnesses.

The text is trustworthy. The documentary evidence is sound, the archaeological evidence supports it, and there isn't any reason not to believe it is the truth.
18-06-2013, 07:49 AM
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(18-06-2013 07:16 AM)David Lee Wrote:  
(17-06-2013 09:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Why not delve into the New Testament and why you believe it is in fact truth.

The gospels were written before 70 C.E., and there isn't anything in them that couldn't have been written from that time period. Usually secular history is written centuries after the events had taken place. Between 20 and 50 years is too slight a period of time to permit any appreciable corruption of the content due to there having been witnesses.

The text is trustworthy. The documentary evidence is sound, the archaeological evidence supports it, and there isn't any reason not to believe it is the truth.

Oops - didn't see that I stepped in the ring. Sorry.

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
18-06-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(18-06-2013 07:16 AM)David Lee Wrote:  
(17-06-2013 09:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Why not delve into the New Testament and why you believe it is in fact truth.

The gospels were written before 70 C.E., and there isn't anything in them that couldn't have been written from that time period. Usually secular history is written centuries after the events had taken place. Between 20 and 50 years is too slight a period of time to permit any appreciable corruption of the content due to there having been witnesses.

The text is trustworthy. The documentary evidence is sound, the archaeological evidence supports it, and there isn't any reason not to believe it is the truth.

Do you have any kind of proof whatsoever that the gospels were written that early? The earliest works were the letters from Saul of Tarsus around that time but long before Mark's gospel (the earliest gospel from every source I have ever seen) and the fact that Mark references the destruction of the temple puts it after 70 CE at the earliest.

As for archeology several things do not line up such as Mathew placing the birth in Bethlehem despite the fact that Yeshua grew up in galilee which is a 3 day walk away. This is due to misreading a "prophecy" Micah 5:2 reads:“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” (NIV). “Bethlehem Ephrathah” clearly referred to a clan of people. Matthew changed this reference to a clan into a tale about a town.

Next we have Luke saying that it was because of a census that Joseph had to drag a very pregnant Mary 3 day march away because of some rule that stated he had to be in his hometown. No, that did not happen in Roman census' and the nearest Census was conducted in 6 CE despite the fact that Mathew said he was born during the rule of Herod the Great who died 10 years before that. Luke gives mention of Cyrenius being the governor of Syria, again he did not rule at the same time as Herod. That is like saying you were born during the presidency of Richard Nixon and the Vice Presidency of Al Gore.

Finally let us move to the town of Nazareth. Earliest records for this town don't pop up for almost 200 years outside the bible and the current city of that name seems to have been founded no earlier than 50CE or 15 years after the supposed death of Yeshua.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
18-06-2013, 03:46 PM
 
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(18-06-2013 11:25 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Do you have any kind of proof whatsoever that the gospels were written that early? The earliest works were the letters from Saul of Tarsus around that time but long before Mark's gospel (the earliest gospel from every source I have ever seen) and the fact that Mark references the destruction of the temple puts it after 70 CE at the earliest.

Matthew was the first gospel written. The exact year isn't known, but the endings of some manuscripts all of which are later than the 10th century C.E. give the date as 41 C.E. Papias of Hierapolis from early in the 2nd century C.E. credited Matthew as the writer. In De viris inlustribus chapter 3 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." He also says the Hebrew text of the Gospel was preserved in his day (fourth and fifth centuries C.E. in the Library that Pamphilus collected in Caesarea.

Quote:As for archeology several things do not line up such as Mathew placing the birth in Bethlehem despite the fact that Yeshua grew up in galilee which is a 3 day walk away. This is due to misreading a "prophecy" Micah 5:2 reads:“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” (NIV). “Bethlehem Ephrathah” clearly referred to a clan of people. Matthew changed this reference to a clan into a tale about a town.

Bethlehem Ephrathah was an earlier name for Bethlehem. See Genesis 35:19. Jesus was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. Luke 2:4-11 / John 7:42.

Quote:Next we have Luke saying that it was because of a census that Joseph had to drag a very pregnant Mary 3 day march away because of some rule that stated he had to be in his hometown. No, that did not happen in Roman census' and the nearest Census was conducted in 6 CE despite the fact that Mathew said he was born during the rule of Herod the Great who died 10 years before that. Luke gives mention of Cyrenius being the governor of Syria, again he did not rule at the same time as Herod. That is like saying you were born during the presidency of Richard Nixon and the Vice Presidency of Al Gore.

There is an incorrect notion that there was only one census taken while Publius Sulpicius was governor of Syria, at about 6 C.E. The one that sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots? (Acts 5:37) That was the second, actually. Inscriptions found at and near Antioch reveals that some years earlier Quirinius or Cyrenius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. As the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."

In 1764 an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus was found which concurs.

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod's was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.

The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27) From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.

Quote:Finally let us move to the town of Nazareth. Earliest records for this town don't pop up for almost 200 years outside the bible and the current city of that name seems to have been founded no earlier than 50CE or 15 years after the supposed death of Yeshua.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

So?
18-06-2013, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2013 04:36 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(18-06-2013 03:46 PM)David Lee Wrote:  
(18-06-2013 11:25 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Do you have any kind of proof whatsoever that the gospels were written that early? The earliest works were the letters from Saul of Tarsus around that time but long before Mark's gospel (the earliest gospel from every source I have ever seen) and the fact that Mark references the destruction of the temple puts it after 70 CE at the earliest.

Matthew was the first gospel written. The exact year isn't known, but the endings of some manuscripts all of which are later than the 10th century C.E. give the date as 41 C.E. Papias of Hierapolis from early in the 2nd century C.E. credited Matthew as the writer. In De viris inlustribus chapter 3 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." He also says the Hebrew text of the Gospel was preserved in his day (fourth and fifth centuries C.E. in the Library that Pamphilus collected in Caesarea.

Papias of Hierapolis
Quote:Papias describes his way of gathering information:
I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth.
So you are using someone who openly states he makes shit up to suit his purpose.

Quote:As for archeology several things do not line up such as Mathew placing the birth in Bethlehem despite the fact that Yeshua grew up in galilee which is a 3 day walk away. This is due to misreading a "prophecy" Micah 5:2 reads:“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” (NIV). “Bethlehem Ephrathah” clearly referred to a clan of people. Matthew changed this reference to a clan into a tale about a town.

Quote:Bethlehem Ephrathah was an earlier name for Bethlehem. See Genesis 35:19. Jesus was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. Luke 2:4-11 / John 7:42.
Again no it was the name of a clan not a town. This was clearly a mistake by the author of the gospel, saying a duck is a fish does not make it so.

Quote:Next we have Luke saying that it was because of a census that Joseph had to drag a very pregnant Mary 3 day march away because of some rule that stated he had to be in his hometown. No, that did not happen in Roman census' and the nearest Census was conducted in 6 CE despite the fact that Mathew said he was born during the rule of Herod the Great who died 10 years before that. Luke gives mention of Cyrenius being the governor of Syria, again he did not rule at the same time as Herod. That is like saying you were born during the presidency of Richard Nixon and the Vice Presidency of Al Gore.

Quote:There is an incorrect notion that there was only one census taken while Publius Sulpicius was governor of Syria, at about 6 C.E. The one that sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots? (Acts 5:37) That was the second, actually. Inscriptions found at and near Antioch reveals that some years earlier Quirinius or Cyrenius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. As the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."

Well it is a mistake either way then isn't it? Either Luke named the wrong Governor of Syria or the dates don't match. Either way Romans never required you to journey to the town of your birth.

Quote:In 1764 an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus was found which concurs.

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod's was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Herod has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke (don't give me no shit about Luke!) says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

No the bible is not the "most accurate source" for anything, Roman records are as they were much better kept and did not suddenly appear 150 years after the events. As far as Luke goes he has more than his share of errors and was obviously working from an incomplete version of previous gospels.

Quote:John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27 From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.

Your are correct that John the Baptist was the elder to Jesus and the leader of their group, this is why Jesus elevates John above himself when they "first" meet in the gospels. I'm going to leave the 70 weeks prophecy alone for now because that is a debate in and of itself. Here is a long discussion as to that
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...enty-Weeks

Quote:Finally let us move to the town of Nazareth. Earliest records for this town don't pop up for almost 200 years outside the bible and the current city of that name seems to have been founded no earlier than 50CE or 15 years after the supposed death of Yeshua.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

So?
[/quote]

So if the town he was supposedly from didn't even exist is that not a major flaw in the narrative and does it not show that the NT is not perfectly historically credible?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
18-06-2013, 05:26 PM
 
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
(18-06-2013 04:31 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Papias of Hierapolis
Quote:Papias describes his way of gathering information:
I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth.
So you are using someone who openly states he makes shit up to suit his purpose.

That's the best you could find, eh? I don't know how you read that quote but I read it like this. "I will teach you my interpretation as I learned it from them, giving assurance of it's truth. "

You are saying that is a bad thing?

Quote:Again no it was the name of a clan not a town. This was clearly a mistake by the author of the gospel, saying a duck is a fish does not make it so.

What clan? What evidence is there of this?

Quote:Well it is a mistake either way then isn't it? Either Luke named the wrong Governor of Syria or the dates don't match. Either way Romans never required you to journey to the town of your birth.

Well, I uh . . . say . . . you have read my response, haven't you? Luke got it right, as the historical and archaeological evidence demonstrate.

Quote:No the bible is not the "most accurate source" for anything, Roman records are as they were much better kept and did not suddenly appear 150 years after the events. As far as Luke goes he has more than his share of errors and was obviously working from an incomplete version of previous gospels.

The evidence I gave disproves your Higher Criticism.

Quote:So if the town he was supposedly from didn't even exist is that not a major flaw in the narrative and does it not show that the NT is not perfectly historically credible?

Well, no. Not at all. I mean it would if there were evidence that it didn't exist, which in itself is a nonsensical proposition. History and archaeology don't typically attest to the non existence of a place. Even well informed atheists, rare though they are, will attest to the significance of the Bible as an historical text, if they are historically inclined it's sort of difficult not to. The Bible mentions it.

Even by modern day standards you would find it very difficult to prove the existence of the small town next to the one I live in. It isn't on any map, most people, even people who live there, don't know it by name. It isn't even listed as a part of their addresses. I don't consider that an important anomaly.
18-06-2013, 10:06 PM
RE: David Lee vs Revenant77x
Quote:Admitted, purposeful deception in the early Christian Church by "Church Fathers"

Let's look at a few early church leaders, many of whom had access to gospels texts, meaning they could have changed them.

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

Was Saint Paul a liar? Looks like it.

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

However, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come" (that is, from God's judgement). But like Paul, we can "take the passage captive" to make a point.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
(St.?) John Chrysostom

The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

In the huge battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. For example, by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances. It lacks both the 'short conclusion' of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west' as well as the 'long conclusion', the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

"The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" […] There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one […] At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship."
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the zealot for papal authority and founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, wrote:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

The Reformation may have swept away some abuses perpetrated by the church liars, priesthood but lying was not one of them. Martin Luther, in private correspondence, said:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church [...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

The Donation of Constantine:
'This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850.'
Catholic Encyclopedia

A two-part document purporting to be from the first Christian emperor to Pope Sylvester I (314-35). In the 'Confessio', Constantine thanks Sylvester for his Christian instruction and baptism (and consequent cure of leprosy!). In his 'Donatio', Constantine confers on the pope and his successors primacy over all other bishops, including the eastern patriarchs, senatorial privileges for the clergy, imperial palaces and regalia, Rome itself and the Western Empire.

In truth, this monstrous 8th century forgery (peppered with anachronisms) was almost certainly written by the future Pope Paul I (757-67) while his equally ambitious brother Stephen II (752-57) sat on the papal throne.

The False Decretals (aka Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries):
They are a riot of more than a hundred fake letters and decrees attributed to pontiffs from 1st century Clement (88-97) to 7th century Gregory I (590-604). Today they are attributed to either 'Isodore Mercator', a supposed 9th century master forger and papal aide, or to a group of Gallic forgers trading on the name and reputation of Isodore of Seville. Like the Donation, the Decretals conferred rights and privileges on the papacy.

A similar collection, the 'Dionysiana', was named for a 6th century monk 'Dennis the Little' (Dionysius Exiguus), inventor of the BC -AD dating system. Dionysius provided the papacy with Latin translation of the canons the Eastern Church. This ripe collection included fifty canons from the very Apostles themselves.

The 'Thundering Legion' Decree of Marcus Aurelius:
In this fabricated letter from the emperor to the Senate, Marcus is said to have forbidden persecution of Christians because prayers from Christian soldiers brought on a thunderstorm which rescued the Romans from thirst and dispersed the barbarian opponents in a battle with the Quadi in 174. The emperor is said to have accorded the Twelfth Legion the suffix fulminata or fulminea, that is, 'thundering'. Tertullian (c.160 – c.230), a North African theologian, made up this nonsense; the twelfth legion had had the suffix legio fulminata from the time of Augustus. The stoic Marcus Aurelius had nothing but contempt for the Christians.

'Letters' of Emperor Antoninus Pius to the Greeks:
More fakery, this time from the pen of 4th century Bishop Eusebius (Ecclesiastic History, IV, 13). He has the pious 2nd century pagan forbid 'tumults against the Christians.'

The Clementines:
These fakes, twenty books of 'curious religious romance' (Catholic Encyclopedia), masquerade as the work of 1st century pontiff Clement I. Written in the 4th century, their purpose was to bolster Rome's claim to be the primary see. Here we have the 'Epistle of Clement to James' which originated the notion that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.


More "pious fraud".
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c5.htm
Thanks to bucky who allowed me to use his argument here.

The point of that was to show, and this is an admitted thing by the early church. They did not care what the truth was they just wanted their vision of things. As such you cannot take their word for anything without outside collaboration. So your version of ducking and weaving to square the circle of Luke messing up an important date is moot since it contradicts outside sources , namely Roman sources.

As to your asinine statement about that no-name town it is self defeating as no one would claim to be from there if they themselves do not know the name of it. Nazareth is a major city in the region now mainly due to religious tourism and that original mistranslation of Nazarene to of Nazareth. Yeshua ben Joseph was a member of the Essene cult the Nazarene's along with his older cousin John and his brother James who took over the leadership of the cult that Yeshua received upon John's death when Yeshua was executed for breaking Pax Romana.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: