Reliability of the Gospels
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2012, 07:56 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 08:01 PM by Free.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 07:54 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-12-2012 07:29 PM)Free Wrote:  Since the law forbids criminal persecution based upon religious beliefs, no crime has been committed.
What about fraud? Consider


Same shit, religious beliefs. Believe me I wish we could persecute this crap with a criminal trial.

Anyways, I will take another look at the videos and turn a blind eye to his argument being invalidated by the Rules of Evidence as long as it's understood that I will now be viewing it from a hypothetical criminal trial perspective.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 08:37 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 07:56 PM)Free Wrote:  Same shit, religious beliefs. Believe me I wish we could persecute this crap with a criminal trial.
I definitely understand where you're coming from. Admittedly, it would be a real stretch to treat it as a criminal case, but there are ways to do it if one insists on it.

(14-12-2012 07:56 PM)Free Wrote:  Anyways, I will take another look at the videos and turn a blind eye to his argument being invalidated by the Rules of Evidence as long as it's understood that I will now be viewing it from a hypothetical criminal trial perspective.
All right, thanks man. Thumbsup

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:10 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 07:25 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That's an admirable goal. BUT....at the end of the day, we want the truth, and so does most of the world.

Like I keep saying, nothing is ever conclusive when it comes to ancient history. We could find the corspe of Jesus along with the sign Pilate placed over his head, use DNA testing, and have another half dozen clear markers pointing to his identity and still we would not have the truth because somebody somewhere would throw up some kind of crazy argument that millions of gullible people would believe.

Quote:You seem adamantly opposed to the idea that Jesus never existed, and you start lecturing anyone who disagrees with you (about, for example, your interpretation of logical fallacies). While your motives are admirable, you shouldn't drive an agenda if you become closed-minded by doing so.

I am not opposed to it, but only opposed to the arguments used to support it, which all fail miserably in the court of reason and get sliced to pieces by Occam's Razor. Now, this may sound insulting, but many proponents for the Jesus Myth theory-including yourself- repeatedly use logical fallacies in their reasoning and fail to use Occam's Razor when evaluating their own arguments. They constantly deny that obvious evidence actually exists, and hold to their theory with a religious fervor.

To be blunt, most Mythers are every bit as much a believer in what they believe in as a Christian or Muslim, and the reasons and arguments they use to believe in what they believe are every bit as weak as a Christian or Muslim.

Seriously, I feel like I am arguing against a theist when I am arguing with Jesus Christ Myth proponents. The difference between them and me is that I am arguing for historical purposes, and they are arguing for non-existence, which is nothing whatsoever.

Quote:Now....I too think Yeshua probably existed, yet I'm open to the possibility that he didn't... because I'm not sure. I too would like to help Christians by helping them discover the humanity of a real OR a 100% invented Jesus.

The argument that somebody named Jesus who was considered to be a Messiah by many 1st century Jews and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate is a far better argument than total myth, by a long shot.
You're at it again! STOP LECTURING ME ABOUT FUCKING LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Your patronising tone is really pissing me off.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm making mistakes in my reasoning....it just means we disagree.

I'll leave it up to you...if you do it again I'll just ignore you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:13 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 08:36 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Now....I too think Yeshua probably existed, yet I'm open to the possibility that he didn't... because I'm not sure. I too would like to help Christians by helping them discover the humanity of a real OR a 100% invented Jesus.
















Okay, so now let's put you to the test.


Please provide any evidence whatsoever to support your belief that Yeshua probably existed. Please demonstrate your reasoning to support this belief.


Wink
Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.


There is secular evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and
James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes (discussed later), and Yeshua was their boss between these two.


The Nazarenes survived for centuries afterwards, weren’t Christians, and they believed Yeshua had existed.


There were numerous second century stories about Jesus, some of which still exist, which never made it into the Bible; it seems likely they were based on someone.


Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been the brother and disciple of Yeshua.


I will prove Yeshua wasn’t as remarkable as the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical
record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his relative insignificance and been destroyed by evangelical Christians in the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:15 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 08:37 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-12-2012 07:56 PM)Free Wrote:  Same shit, religious beliefs. Believe me I wish we could persecute this crap with a criminal trial.
I definitely understand where you're coming from. Admittedly, it would be a real stretch to treat it as a criminal case, but there are ways to do it if one insists on it.

(14-12-2012 07:56 PM)Free Wrote:  Anyways, I will take another look at the videos and turn a blind eye to his argument being invalidated by the Rules of Evidence as long as it's understood that I will now be viewing it from a hypothetical criminal trial perspective.
All right, thanks man. Thumbsup


NP dude. Here's some more stuff.


In video 16 A, the narrator starts in on his attempt to claim that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, and therefore is invalidated.

Narrator says that Mark recorded the statements of the apostle Peter and therefore the Gospel of Mark should be considered hearsay.

Argument against this is quite simple. If an office secretary took dictation from his/her employer and typed it in a letter, would it then be the statement of the secretary, or would the letter more accurately still reflect the statements of the employer?

Obviously the letter would still reflect the statements of the employer, and the same is true for the Gospel of Mark. Mark would simply be the secretary, and Peter would be the employer.

Narrator claims that since the Gospel of Mark is a copy of previous copies, it cannot be trusted.

Another argument against this is that if a secretary made a a few copies of a letter to be sent out, does it mean that the content of the letter has changed just because it was copied? Since the narrator fails to prove that the copy we currently possess is different from the original text, then his argument is unsubstantiated.

Narrator's position on Hearsay is disputed, as he failed to understand that if Mark took dictation from Peter, as the narrator claims, then by no means can he claim the author of that Gospel is anonymous, as he is demonstrating evidence that suggests the Gospel's author is actually the Apostle Peter. Nor can he dismiss the Gospel as hearsay since he now admits it to be a first-hand account by the Apostle Peter.

Hmmm ... this is so silly it's actually humorous.

I'll post more later. Time for some fine wine with my wife.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 08:53 AM)Free Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 09:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Um.....what are you on about? I never mentioned Origin (I was talking about Irenaeus). Whether what Irenaeus wrote is in the gospels or not is irrelevant. He was a very important church father. He should have known how old Jeebus was. Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this.

Have you been smoking something? Big Grin


Have never done drugs.

Sorry about the mistype.

I see you have attempted to change your position from the following ...


Quote:This demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late second century.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid219176

... to the following:

Quote:Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this.


So first you claim the Gospels hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this, and when I demonstrated to you that you had no point, you then switched it to say Jesus hadn't finished evolving.

That fallacy is known as Moving the Goalposts.

I don't think it's me who is smoking anything.

Wink
I can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say here.

You'll have to reword it, because it just doesn't make sense.

"Jeebus" ie the gospels' Jesus, and "the gospels" are the same thing. No goalpost has been moved. And you're still accusing me of logical fallacies, whereas you, in fact, have failed to understand a rather simple concept
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:31 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 09:53 PM by Free.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:You're at it again! STOP LECTURING ME ABOUT FUCKING LOGICAL FALLACIES.


If you are going to use them, I will most certainly point them out.

Quote:Your patronising tone is really pissing me off.

That is not the intention. The intention is to make you aware, and how can that be done without instruction that can be wrongfully understood as "patronizing?"

Would you rather I be blunt as hell and simply systematically tear apart your arguments without instruction? I can be that cold and impersonal if you want, but you will dislike it very very much.

But if you want me to be a fucking impersonal machine, so be it.

Quote:Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm making mistakes in my reasoning....it just means we disagree.[quote]

We can disagree and you can still make mistakes in your reasoning.

[quote]I'll leave it up to you...if you do it again I'll just ignore you.

No problem.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:50 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:There is secular evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes (discussed later), and Yeshua was their boss between these two.

There is no secular evidence that John the Baptist was related to Yeshua.

There is no secular evidence that John and James even existed, let alone were leaders of the Nazarene sect.

There is no secular evidence that Yeshua knew anyone named John the Baptist, or James and John.

Your argument above does not "loosely" depend on the Gospel accounts, but in reality, it entirely depends on the Gospel accounts.


Quote:The Nazarenes survived for centuries afterwards, weren’t Christians, and they believed Yeshua had existed.

We need actual historical evidence to support this. Please quote.


Quote:There were numerous second century stories about Jesus, some of which still exist, which never made it into the Bible; it seems likely they were based on someone.

Agreed.


Quote:Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been the brother and disciple of Yeshua.

Agreed.


Quote:I will prove Yeshua wasn’t as remarkable as the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical
record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his relative insignificance and been destroyed by evangelical Christians in the second, third, and fourth centuries.

Please provide a reasonable argument supported with historical evidence.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 09:57 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-12-2012 08:37 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I definitely understand where you're coming from. Admittedly, it would be a real stretch to treat it as a criminal case, but there are ways to do it if one insists on it.

All right, thanks man. Thumbsup


NP dude. Here's some more stuff.


In video 16 A, the narrator starts in on his attempt to claim that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, and therefore is invalidated.

Narrator says that Mark recorded the statements of the apostle Peter and therefore the Gospel of Mark should be considered hearsay.

Argument against this is quite simple. If an office secretary took dictation from his/her employer and typed it in a letter, would it then be the statement of the secretary, or would the letter more accurately still reflect the statements of the employer?

Obviously the letter would still reflect the statements of the employer, and the same is true for the Gospel of Mark. Mark would simply be the secretary, and Peter would be the employer.

Narrator claims that since the Gospel of Mark is a copy of previous copies, it cannot be trusted.

Another argument against this is that if a secretary made a a few copies of a letter to be sent out, does it mean that the content of the letter has changed just because it was copied? Since the narrator fails to prove that the copy we currently possess is different from the original text, then his argument is unsubstantiated.

Narrator's position on Hearsay is disputed, as he failed to understand that if Mark took dictation from Peter, as the narrator claims, then by no means can he claim the author of that Gospel is anonymous, as he is demonstrating evidence that suggests the Gospel's author is actually the Apostle Peter. Nor can he dismiss the Gospel as hearsay since he now admits it to be a first-hand account by the Apostle Peter.

Hmmm ... this is so silly it's actually humorous.

I'll post more later. Time for some fine wine with my wife.
Acts 4:13
"And when they had heard the discourse of Shimeon and of Yohannan, that
they spoke it openly, they perceived that they did not know the scrolls
and that they were uneducated, and they were amazed at them and
recognized them that they had lived with Yeshua."

http://bible.cc/acts/4-13.htm

You do know in order to be able to read and write during their time you would've had to been educated.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 10:15 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  In video 16 A, the narrator starts in on his attempt to claim that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, and therefore is invalidated.

Narrator says that Mark recorded the statements of the apostle Peter and therefore the Gospel of Mark should be considered hearsay.

Argument against this is quite simple. If an office secretary took dictation from his/her employer and typed it in a letter, would it then be the statement of the secretary, or would the letter more accurately still reflect the statements of the employer?

Obviously the letter would still reflect the statements of the employer, and the same is true for the Gospel of Mark. Mark would simply be the secretary, and Peter would be the employer.
The author of the Gospel of Mark does not identify himself in his work, as such we have no way of knowing who wrote it. This argument is also supported by the fact that we have no original version of it. He fulfills all of the criteria for being classified as anonymous. Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark is considered to be hearsay by the maker of these videos precisely because he wasn't an eyewitness to the events and had to rely on the accounts of someone else as a consequence.

(14-12-2012 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Narrator claims that since the Gospel of Mark is a copy of previous copies, it cannot be trusted.

Another argument against this is that if a secretary made a a few copies of a letter to be sent out, does it mean that the content of the letter has changed just because it was copied? Since the narrator fails to prove that the copy we currently possess is different from the original text, then his argument is unsubstantiated.
I thought the last analogy was already unfitting, but this one actually qualifies for the fallacy of the false analogy. A printer creates an exact copy of a document which is identical to the original. The secretary who operates the printer has no influence on the content of the copy, it will be the exact same document as the original. Now, copying a manuscript manually (by hand) allows one to make deliberate changes to the original, such as altering stories and messages, leaving things out and it opens up the possibility of making mistakes by accident. This is not the case with a printer.

As has been demonstrated by the creator of these videos, changing certain passages to fit one's ideology was not an uncommon practice among the Gospel writers. The fact that we have no original of the Gospel of Mark is exactly the reason why it's not reliable. For all we know, the original could've been changed numerous times throughout the years.

(14-12-2012 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Narrator's position on Hearsay is disputed, as he failed to understand that if Mark took dictation from Peter, as the narrator claims, then by no means can he claim the author of that Gospel is anonymous, as he is demonstrating evidence that suggests the Gospel's author is actually the Apostle Peter. Nor can he dismiss the Gospel as hearsay since he now admits it to be a first-hand account by the Apostle Peter.
He actually didn't admit that the Gospel of Mark is the first-hand account of the Apostle Peter, he stated it's hearsay because whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark wasn't an eye-witness to the events that are described in it. Also, his evidence actually demonstrates that the anonymous writer of the Gospel of Mark and Peter are two different persons. You should take a look at the citations from Irenaeus (03:31) and Eusebius (03:46) again. You should also take a look at the examples the narrator of the video gives for geographical errors (08:11), internal contradictions (06:46-07:50) and implausibilities (10:03) in Mark's account.

(14-12-2012 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Hmmm ... this is so silly it's actually humorous.
With all due respect, I'd be disappointed if this is all you got.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: