Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
It looks like it did, I was able to understand it. Ill post my counter in a few days.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
20-07-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 1:
(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I do admit that a person that was named Jesus from the City of Nazareth could have existed, but based on what I've researched thus far I find it unlikely, the name Jesus wasn't exactly uncommon.

Nonsense. The name of Jesus wasn't uncommon, but this particular Jesus was the ultimate source from which the religion Christianity originated from, and we have both Biblical and non-Biblical sources that attest to that, making it...HISTORICAL.

Biblical sources are not historical, this is part of our entire debate, you have yet to show that the Bible is a historical document. Also what extra-biblical sources? I have yet to find a source that doesn't suggest forgery. If you are referring to the annals of Tacticus the only mention of a Jesus is in a single paragraph in one his books, and even then the wording he used is inconsistent suggestting that section was forged in. Especially his use of the word Christiani as the split between Judisim and Christanity didn't occur until after the 1st century CE and didn't fully complete until at the earliest the 2nd century. (source document: Robert Goldenberg. Review of Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism by Daniel Boyarin in The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 92, No. 3/4 (Jan.–Apr., 2002), pp. 586–588)

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  While it may fit the definition of a biography one thing to realize though is, biographies can be partly or entirely fictional. The information doesn't have to be from anyone that knew the person, for the gospels they would be mostly fictional with smatterings of fact in them, such as at least some of the locations mentioned did actually exist, Jerusalem for example, as well as some of the people Harod for example here, although his actions and timeframes of those actions could be considered in question. Now If your argument was true then the Biography of Jean-Luc Picard of the Starship Enterprise would have to be true as well.

Here is his biography by the way http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard


So the question is, how did the authors intend for their books to be taken? Did the authors intend for their books to be read as fiction, or non-fiction? Were they lying, or telling the truth? Based on Paul's testimony, the preface of Luke, and the ending of John...I don't see how any honest person can conclude that the stories/testimony were just figments of their imagination. Either they were lying, or telling the truth.

Since the authors were appearing to want to create some type of historcal record they would want thier writings to be taken as non-fiction. However, the point must be made that intent is only a very small piece of the puzzle. And given the rough timeframe that the gospels were written and what was going on in the Jewish world a the time with discontent between the Jews and the Romans resulting in a revolt in 66 CE and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE there would have been serious motives to try and alter the Jewish faith because one of the core pieces of the religion(the temple) had been destroyed by the romans with no intent of it being rebuilt. The amount of trauma this caused to the Jews can't be understated and left them with trying to answer the four questions below.

How to achieve atonement without the Temple?
How to explain the disastrous outcome of the rebellion?
How to live in the post-Temple, Romanized world?
How to connect present and past traditions?

Seems to me that the efforts to try and answer those questions could result in a whole new religion.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  As far as Jean-Luc Picard is concerned, you mentioning him reminds of when unbelievers often use Santa Claus, "I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus".

I mentioned this to disprove the point that biographies are always written about a real life person that you tried to make.


(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But we don't believe in Santa Claus because of the evidence AGAINST such a person. There is no one living on the North Pole, flying around giving children presents, with a magical sleigh of reindeer, one of whom which has a shiny nose. That is why we don't believe in Santa Claus, and that is why no one is going around stating the Jean-Luc Picard is an actual historical person based on Star Trek. Nor did the originators of Star Trek intend for the series to be taken as non-fiction.

Apples and oranges when compared to Jesus of Nazareth.

It's not apples and oranges, the entire debate i've been presenting evidence to you that the Biblical accounts are not historical and that the dates you attribute to them are not the actual dates that they were written. Since the Bible is not a historical doucment by my argument then Jesus of Nazarath is just as Fictional as Jean Luc Picard or Santa Claus.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're argument actually supports the idea of euhemerization rather than refutes it as well, I may have missed defining euhemerization in my previous post so I will post that now.

euhemerization
Noun
(plural euhemerizations)

The interpretation of myths as historical events

And how does one determine what is a myth and what isn't?

This is pretty simple actually.

1. Do the events, people, or places described violate the known laws of nature?
2. Is there any evidence of the events, people, or places described?

Those two criterion may be a bit of an oversimiplification on my part, in any case though rule one must always be passed before you can move on to rule two

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The Farrer hypothesis and the Q source Hypothesis both call into serious question that the accounts were by eyewitnesses, and again if the author was not an eyewitness than the account is hearsay at best, since you state you will give individual reasons I will deal with those as they come up Smile

First, even if the Q source hypothesis turns out to be true, that would still mean that this source is even earlier than the Gospels, obviously. So the source of Q would be independent sources that predate both the Gospels, AND Paul's epistles, which would further give credibility to main idea (Jesus/Resurrection).

The Q source would have predated the gospels true, but if the Q source documents existed they have been completly lost. And we don't know if the Q Source was independent, who wrote it, or really much about it. So no real help to your argument here, I brought up the hypothesis to make a point about the gospels not being eyewitness accounts and that there are alternative explinations, the Q source being a rather weak once on the Theologist standpoint.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Second, the source of Q doesn't act as BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, but just a compiled collection of his sayings. Kind of like a "Greatest Sayings of Jesus" list, or "The Best of Jesus" list. It says nothing about the life and times of Jesus, and if that is the case, then you would need to provide an alternate explanation as to where the author writers got the rest of their material from...so the Q source won't help in that regard.

Irrelivant, it still causes problems with your argument of the gospels being eyewitness accounts, an eyewitness wouldn't need a "Jesus greatest sayings" document if they were actual eyewitnesses to the events.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Third, the Farrer hypothesis; look, no Gospel could have copied ENTIRELY from the other two synoptics. As much similarities as there are between the three, there are differences as well, as some books include accounts that the others don't mention, which means that neither book relied ENTIRELY on the others. Mark is supposed to be the one that both Matthew and Luke relied on loosely, yet Mark is the shortest Gospel out of all four?? Makes no sense. And it would make sense that Luke would use one of the others as a source, as he approached the ordeal as a Gentile...an investigator, and if he thought that Mark was a good source to use as he gathered information in an attempt to give an account to Theophilus, then it is what it is.

I did't make that argument and that is not what the Farrer Hypothesis says either, the hypothesis makes the argument that Mark was written first, Matthew was written using Mark as a source document, and Luke was written last using Mark and Matthew as source documents. This doesn't mean the entire thing was copied word for word into the other two gospels, the similarity in narrative and wording and order all suggest a common source. Hence the Gnostic problem, that this hypothesis is trying to solve for. The length of a book is irrelivent to it being used as a source document.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Acts was written well after the book of Mark, closer to the 2nd century than the 1st century

That is the claim, but what I need is reasons for the claim. In other words, make the case.

The source is cited for you to review, But to expand on it, ACTS was a rather obscure document even until the 5th century CE. And provides some history of Christianity and seems to have escaped a good bit of editing by the early christians as demonstrated here.

"The Lord whom we read of in the epistles appears to be a real figure from history, seemingly resurrected as the story begins, and seen by many at that time. Those who saw him c. 35 CE, as reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, were expecting action as implied by their eschatological beliefs. The Lord, as Messiah, would lead mankind through the last days, but his mission either failed or was indefinitely postponed, and Paul was the last to see him. The story had no end and the sightings petered out. The believers waited eagerly, but died disappointed, with Paul anxious to reassure those who feared they would die before the Lord manifested himself to all (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:13-17).

The Gospel account, on the other hand, has the Lord resurrected--not at the beginning of the story--but at the end of a prefacing drama inserted before the sightings occurred, giving an account of an earthly life. The drama ends with death and then Resurrection, now presented as a glorious fulfilment of his mission. The story that had no ending now becomes the ending itself, but of another story. The subsequent eternal waiting was forgotten at first, but later reentered Christian doctrine as a required vigil rather than a disappointment, with the faithful awaiting a parousia at some unspecified future date." - [Hidden History in Acts of the Apostles (2003) Sid Green]

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  On a side note cliffhanger stories are not exactly uncommon either in literature, why the author left it out we would have to speculate on, but if you were trying to make a book look written earlier than it actually was that would be a great way to try and do it.

If Luke is the author then he wouldn't need to do that, now would he?

And you're proof that Luke is the author is?

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  So what exactly are you trying to say here? That paul wrote all the gospels or had a hand in all of them?

I am saying, if you are gonna make Paul the central figure in the second half of Acts, and in the book you include the deaths of guys like Stephen, James, and Herod...you found their deaths worth mentioning, why not mention the death of Paul, if he died after the book was written? Since Paul's death is not mentioned but a guy like Herod's death is mentioned, I am concluding that Paul was still alive when the book was written...and if Paul died in 67 CE, then that would mean that the book of Acts couldn't have been written before 67 CE, which means that Luke had to have been written even earlier than that, and you just work backwards from there.

Now of course, this isn't a knock-down argument, but I am appealing to what I believe to be the best explanation.

The same arguemet I used for a cliff hanger story can be used here, if your trying to make a document look like it was written earlier than it was this would be a good way to do it. Paul the apostle died around 67 CE according to the apologetic websites so im being very generous on the date here. However the earliest date that Luke was written is 85 CE. My source for the date is listed on the first debate post I made. And since Luke and Acts have the same author, there is no way paul could have written a document that dates to well after he died.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The authorship of Luke Is Unknown

Then the authorship of anything written in antiquity is unknown because the fact of the matter is, no one living today was there when it was written. The question is, what reasons do we have for believing that person X wrote book Y? And in this case, we have the early church claiming that Luke wrote a Gospel, a guy that never met Christ.

There is a method to determine authorship of a document and four categories that the authorship can fall into.

How do we determine the authorship of a document.
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it?
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors?
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written?
4. Are there other records outside the work that make mention of the author and his works?

Once that is done along wth some other linguistc comparisions one of four authorship categories categories can be assigned to the work

1. the person who is named in the book,
2. someone else, who has been identified,
3. someone who has not been identified, but who has also written particular other texts, or
4. an unknown author.

So lets apply these criterion to the gospels using the arguments I've made thus far.

Mark:

1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues show two authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? Lingustic clues show that Mark had one author writing around 65 CE and another author writing around 80 - 90 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

Matthew:
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Possibly a single author, but an edit may be present from a second author which is disputed
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? Lingustic clues suggest authorship between 70CE and 100CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

Luke:

1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues suggest composite document of multiple authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? The document being written as a compiliation and the lingusitic style suggest around 85-100 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

John:
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues indicate three authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? The clues show that the dates would be around 100 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

With the exception of what Paul wrote, the gospels all fall into category 4.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now scholars today may disagree with this, but my question is simple; Who has more credibility in this regard? Guys that are over 2,000 years removed from the scene (today's historians), or guys that were a little over 100 years removed from the scene (early Church Fathers)?? I am gonna go with the early Church Fathers.

None of the gospels bothered to mention who wrote them, so the time difference is irrellevent and the church fathers had bias, and motive to attribute an authorship. You could be a month removed or 10,000 years removed from the source document, if no one bothered to mention who wrote the thing in the orginal document or by contempories then there is no way to know at all.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is pure personal speculation, do you have a source for coming up with these dates?

I gave my reasons.

I went back into the debate and looked at your reasons again, you are basing it entierly on the death of paul, biblical scholars and skeptics both disagree with your dates. Even your own NIV study bible doesn't give those dates either. So again pure and utter speculation on your part.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Your internally contradicting here and following what you are trying to say is very difficult as it doesn't flow well

So basically you are telling me that you understood enough to know that there is an "internal contradiction", but yet following what I said is difficult and it doesn't flow well?? Makes no sense.

Because an argument is difficult to follow, and doesn't flow well doesn't mean I didn't understand it.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  However, let me elaborate. My point is, since the authors were so quick to enlighten readers on whenever Jesus fulfilled a prophecy, why didn't they include the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 CE? If the book was written AFTER it happened, right? Makes no sense.

Here is what the prophecy says:
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

The prophecy wasn't fulfilled, the western wall of the temple complex surived, known also as the wailing wall. And this is a lousy prophecy as well, no timeframe is given. A prophecy with no timeline isn't a prophecy. Its like me saying, See ye not all these houses in Phoenix, verily I say unto you there shall not be left here one object upon another. All we need is to wait is a long enough period of time and my "prophecy" will happen eventually.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  , also "Matthew is traditionally (historically) understood to have originally been written in Hebrew, sometime between 50s and 70s, then translated, edited, and added to by the actual author of Matthew sometime in the last part of the first century, or even as late as the second century.

Blank assertions with no reasons as to why one should adopt such a viewpoint.

I provided my source for this conclusion, so the assertation is far from blank.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  While there linguistic evidence to support the idea that a few distinct passages in Matthew could have been written in Hebrew linguistic markers in the Greek version of Matthew do not support this theory." [Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, Robert Price] In short a prophecy predicting the destruction of the temple is totally meaningless when the book was written/edited well after the destruction occurred.

Then back to my original question...if you have Jesus himself predicting that the temple would be destroyed, if you are writing the book after the temple was destroyed, why would you fail to mention this fulfillment? Again, this was not just some minor issue in the Jewish community, this was the holy temple of Jerusalem.

Makes no sense.

The prophecy wasn't fulfilled in the way Jesus prediceted it, the western wall of the temple complex still exists. And yes the destruction of the temple was a massivley traumatic event in the Jewish community, I mention this above.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  A unanimous testimony from a bunch of people from the early church 65 years after mark was written?

65 years? Dude, the biographies of Alexander the Great were written between 300- 400 years after his death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiogr...in_sources

Even if one BELIEVES the Gospels/Epistles were written in the late first century/early second century, that is STILL closer to the events in question than the biographies of Alexander the Great relative to the person in question.

His biographies actually are within 200-400 years, the article you posted mentions there are 5 main sources dating from 100 BCE to 300 CE. Also thank you for posting your source, too bad it hurts your argument rather than supports it. In reading the actual source you posted here is what we have to prove that Alexander the Great existed.

5 Main sources all biographies, describing his life in different aspects including his military career and and life itself. 1 source is called out for geographical errors, military knowledge ignorance, and chronology. However the focus that author had was on the character of Alexander the great, one other source also points out it was focused more on his morality. The other three are much stronger historical sources. The date span is of course concerning, however we have more sources than just these documents. Such as the Greek epigraphy that your source mentions, along with mentions of him in oriental tradition. Throw in incidential sources on top of that and you have a strong case for Alexander the Great existing.

Compare that to the Gospels that all contradict each other, when trying to describe the same events, and that there are no extra-biblacal sources around the gospels either. Not to mention all the supernatural events that supposedly took place that no one else bothered to mention.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And not only that, but we are just talking about when the stuff was written on paper. However, the core belief in Christianity goes back to Paul's epistles, with the earliest in the 50's CE, and in his Epistles he is talking about events that occurred shortly after the death of Jesus (1 Corin 15:3-7).

Again he can say anthing in his letters, and why do you keep going back to the same section in Corinthians? I have stated repeatedly that its a creed and you agreed it was a creed, its not evidence.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  One common theme for the skeptics is to make it seem as if Christianity began when the Gospels were written, as if Christianity didn't exist until then. Nonsense. The belief in the Resurrection had already traveled almost 1,000 miles from Jerusalem to Corinth by the 50's CE...and this was long before the days of automobiles, television, and the internet.

Corinth may be far away from Jerusalam, but even back then you could take a boat from the coast of isreal and get to corinth pretty quickly. Also something to keep in mind is that Judiasm and Christanity didn't completly split until sometime in the 2nd century CE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_e...nd_Judaism

The roots might have begun earlier than 50 CE, but until sometime in the 2nd century it was still considered a jewish sect. So us skeptics are justified in saying that Christianity didn't exist in the 1st century.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The author was long dead by then, interestingly enough you omitted a rather key piece of information from your source

Omitted? Dude, I gave you a link Laugh out load

Let me clarify, omitted from your argument.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  , here is what it says about Papias

"Eusebius (A.D. 330) quoted Papias (A.D. 130) as saying, "Mark, being the interpreter of St. Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but he was afterwards a follower of St. Peter."

Wow. It's amazing how things just flow together. Now Papias could have just said that Mark was actually a follower of Jesus, but instead, he honestly admitted that Mark was not a follower of Jesus. Modesty. And notice how Papias' account harmonizes with the preface of Luke, when Luke stated that many (Mark included) have undertaken the task of drawing up an account as to what happened...with the source material coming from eyewitnesses of Jesus (Peter).

Modesty is meaningless, evidence is what counts. Uhm Luke was written by the time Papais supposedly made his account, so he could have easily read Luke and then made his account harmonize with the preface of Luke.

Again accounts written by people that didn't actually witness the event is hearsay.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  So you have someone 265 years after the book of mark was written

And Arrian wrote over 400 years after Alexander the Great lived and wrote an autobiography of him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anabas...r#Details, and historians view Arrian's work in this regard as credible. Compare that to a Mark's Gospel, which was written even according to you in 65 CE, which is around 30 years or so after the cross...so you tell me which one was written closer to the events? Double standard.
Its not a double standard, the biography you pointed out yes was written well after the death of alexander the great and a historian would point that out as an issue if those biographies were the only source, also there is a biography much closer to his death around 200 years. As well as several sources of confirming evidence. Which you would have read above in one of my prior arguments..

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  quoting someone who was alive 65 years after the book of mark was written

Nonsense. Papias is said to have written those passages about the Gospels around 100 CE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logia#Papi...ierapolis. You said yourself that Mark was written around 65 CE...so you do the math.

This was a math goof on my part, was looking at his date of death in error, but this doesn't hurt my argument as 45 years is still a good bit of time.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  when the author would have been dead (average lifespan was around 48 years old in this time)

Nonsense. The current average lifespan in the U.S is 78, yet the oldest woman alive is Susannah Mushatt Jones, who is currently the oldest woman in the world at 116 years old.

There are of course exceptions to average lifespans, however anyone above 48 would be rare back in the 1st century. Living past 60 would be almost unheard of. The idea of anyone living to 116 in the 1st century would be proposterous. Its extremely rare even today with all our medical technology for people to get past 100.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  So neither person would have known the author this is not evidence, especially when both church fathers would have had ulterior motives to say mark wrote mark.

Since your above logic is invalid, any conclusion that is draw from that invalid logic is also invalid.

My logic wasn't invalid, my date was a bit off. Your logic is invalid though in comparing current exceptions to the life expectancy of around 77 to the life expectancy of someone living 2000 years ago.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Worom's post
20-07-2015, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2015 03:13 PM by Worom.)
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 2:
(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Something to keep in mind with the early church is it was not a unified body by any means, there were several early churches each writing thier own versions of the gospels, so it could have originated from that. This is a bit of speculation on my part

Well, there is no evidence that there were quarrels amongst anyone involved in the church as to who wrote what book. The authorship of the Gospels was always unanimous.

There was a lot of quarelling going on in the early church including which gospels were cannon so theres that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani...ical_canon

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Richard Carrier describes a case where an orthodox church was caught red handed making a forgery of gospel they were using in his videos and books.

Good point, which is why we should be careful not to generalize and examine things on a case by case basis.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  And your proof of this would be?

Simple. Lets just take 1 Cor 15:3-7, for example. If Paul isnt lying, and he was actually handed down the creed by prior believers, and Paul and those that handed down the creed actually BELIEVED what they were testifying, then it follows that what they believed must be true. Why? Because if they sincerely believed what they were saying, then no one can say that they were lying. So the question is, what is the best explanation as to why they believed what they believed? And I think the best explanation is that they were telling the truth, and what they claimed happend, HAPPENED.

Again creeds are not evidence, he was handed down that creed they may have beleieved what they were saying but without evidence it doesn't make it true. Sincear belief doesn't make it true, you could sincearly believe that you can fly and that gravity doesn't effect you, but somehow I doubt you would go jumping off a building or if you did you would find yourself on the ground rather quickly.

So they very much lied, possibly with some sprinkles of truth.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I'm pretty sure my college professors would disagree with you, this is a no true scottsman fallacy in action here. Thier view of the Bible would be more metaphorical instead of literal.

Well, please enlighten me on what the metaphor is.

I'm not sure exactly what they would say, as I didn't ask at the time or at least I don't remember. But something along the lines of needing a personal savior to absolve them of sins and what they saw as the corrupt nature of the world.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  "Geographical Errors

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Ok, so according to the translation/version of the Bible you just used, it has "the LAND of the Gerasenes. I looked up other translations and some render the verse as "in the Gerasenes territory", "in the region of Gerasenes", "in the region of "Gadarenes" "the country of Gadarenes".

Five different Bibles, five different translations. Either way there is no contradiction. Obviously, the incident occurred right after Jesus got off of the boat (verse 2), and based on ALL translations above, it is clear that he wasn't in a particular city per say, but he was in the REGION/TERRITORY of Gadarenes/Gerasenes.

Which translations did you look at? The article was written using the King James Version a litteral translation

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Even in the wiki article, it doesn't describe the "land of the Gerasenes" as a city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gergesa , but rather, a "place"..and this place is in fact within Gadara territory.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Matthew recognized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara

Ok, so he is correcting Mark, yet, he is using him as a source? Makes no sense.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark)

Nonsense. If there was two, then there was at least one. One account mentions one of the two, and the other one mentions both. Next.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  but Gadara was still six miles from the lake.

But since the accounts doesn't state that Jesus went TO Gadara, but to its region, then the "six miles" thing is irrelevant.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

All of those places are in the REGION of the Sea of Galilee, according to what I see on any map that look at.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Tyre and Sidon are on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

That would depend on which translation you are using, because in the NIV, it states "Then Jesus left the vacinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee...", whch means that Jesus left Tyre, went up to Sidon, and down back to the Sea of Galilee. Wow, will ya look at that Cool

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  There also wasn't a road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.

There wasn't? How do you know?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake.Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition ana denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction ana meson which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means.

The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee.

Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson twn oriwn dekapolewV (...ana meson ton horion decapoleos); literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis."

There seems to still be an implication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing.

You are making it seem as if Jesus was supposed to go the direction YOU want him to go. Did it ever occur to you that Jesus may have taken an alternate route to get to the Sea of Gailee, a route that would have taken him "through the Decapolis" to get to the lake, because maybe he wanted to preach to some of the folks within the borders of the cities (or whatever the case may be)?

Back in 2010, I traveled (drove) from Phoenix, AZ to Fort Campbell, KY. But before I went to KY, I was GOING to make my way up to New Mexico first (I changed my mind about going to NM). Now, suppose I actually made the trip to NM first, and someone is wring a narrative of my trip...and they say "Kevin traveled from AZ to KY, traveling through NM and to the KY border".

Now someone can read this narrative and say "There is a discrepancy in your story, you can't get to KY THROUGH NM!!!", but the narrative is only describing the route that was taken, it doesn't mean that I went through NM and after one step outside of NM I arrived in KY.

You, my friend, is simply "over-analyzing" the situation.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Crossing the Jordan into Judea

Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea.

Nonsense. It doesn't state that Jesus crossed the Jordan into Judea. It states that he went from Capernaum down to Judea, AND <----(keyword) crossed over the Jordan river.

10 After Jesus left, he went to Judea and then on to the other side of the Jordan River. Once again large crowds came to him, and as usual, he taught them.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided.

Well, they decided not to avoid it this time, apparently.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route.

Mark is probably just telling readers what happened, not giving a damn about customary routes or any other commonalites one may think of.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Bethsaida and Gennesaret

In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story:

Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on.

You are a smart man, and I can tell by how you used "presumably" here Laugh out load And you are damn right it is "presumable", because neither this scripture or any other scripture within the 6th chapter (Mark) or elsewhere tells us where the feeding of the 5,000 took place. In Mark 6, the only thing we can assume based on what is stated is that Jesus went to Nazareth (Mark 6:1) and preached "village to village" (Mark 6:6).

So if the narrative went from Mark 6:1 with Jesus in Nazareth, to Mark 6:30 with Jesus & company somewhere around the Sea of Galilee , yet it doesn't record the actual city by city /village by village comings and goings...we really don't know where exactly the feeding of the 5,000 took place. The distance from Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee isn't exactly close, especially on foot, yet that is the distance covered in 30 verses without the author recording the actual travel time.

Sure, we can speculate all we want, but only one of us here is making a big fuss over something that isn't even explicitly implied.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Bethpage and Bethany

(This is more of a minor error)

In Mark 11, Jesus and his posse are walking from Jericho to Jerusalem. Mark describes their route as going through Bethpage the Bethany but they would have passed those towns in the opposite order coming from Jericho.

Nonsense. Coming from Jericho, depending on the route that you take, you can actually walk right down the middle of the outskirts of both cities. So Mark is actually correct because I just looked at a map of the area, and just like Mark said, if you come from Jericho, you will approach both cities and if you walk on the outskirts, you will pass both Bethpage and Bethany, one to your right, and one to your left.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  There are some other nitpicky things as well. Mark calls Bethsaida a "village" when it was actually a good sized city.

Where did he say that at?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  He also names some towns that are unknown from any other literature from the time (Dalmanutha, Arimathea, even Nazareth) and may have been Mark's own inventions (I think at least Arimathea probably was).

Lets pretend as if we know of every city, town, and village from 2,000 years ago and beyond. Let's continue to pretend as if our knowledge of the ancient world and geography is complete and with full understanding.

I am being sarcastic, by the way.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Legal and cultural errors in Mark

Mark doesn't know Jewish divorce law.

In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce: 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not.

Yeah, and also said that if a man divorces his wife, unless for marital unfaithfulness, he commits adultery against her (Matt 19:1-9). The Pharisees knew the law and told Jesus was "Moses commanded"...and Jesus basically told them, to hell what Moses said, I am saying this...so in other words, Jesus is God, and his word is law, and if Jesus allows for a woman to divorce husband (or not), then that is the law. Point blank, period.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws.

Mark says this in 7:3-4: 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

Well, regardless of who the laws applied to, Jesus made it clear in his response to the Pharisees that those laws were MAN MADE LAWS, not laws commanded by God.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The trial before the Sanhedrin

Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. Each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law.

Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.

Nonsense. Mark 15:1 clearly states that the trial began at DAYBREAK..and daybreak is "the time of the morning when light first appears. "http://www.thefreedictionary.com/daybreak

And when you think about it, that actually makes PERFECT sense. If it was forbidden for the Sanhedrin to hold trials at night as you say...then it would make perfect sense for those that were hell bent on putting Jesus on trial to get started as early in the morning as they possibly could, in other words...FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, when they could legally do so.

It all kinda flows together...like pearls on a string Laugh out load

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest.

You are assuming that the "courtyard" of the high priest is synonymous with "home" of the high priest.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.

Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah"

Jewish law? Jesus was not tried by the Jews, he was tried by the Roman authorities, which was Pilate & company. The Jews may have saw that Jesus had been placed on trial, but it was not through their law and their courts that Jesus was crucified...so in other words, the Pharisees used a loop hole where they bypassed their own rules and regulations and used an external system in efforts to see that Jesus be sentenced to death as early as possible. That is how much they wanted the son of the living God dead.

I should point out as I did orginally, I didn't write this entire section, I quoted it from the source link. And without knowing which bible versions you were looking at other than the NIV which is a 50/50 translation/interpolation which means that the translater could have fixed some of the errors.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes, however I fail to see your point on this matter? Verse 16:8 kinda makes things a bit difficult for the author if they were using supposed eyewitness, or passed down testimony.

Well, we still have the testimony of Paul who did not use any of the Gospels as sources for his material, and his epistles predate the Gospels...so it isn't as if the book of Mark is where the beginning of Christianity rises or fall.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
20-07-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 3:
(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

How would the author know this, if they told no one?

Facepalm Obviously they didn't tell anyone, AT FIRST.

That's not what the book says though, it says they told no one. It doesn't say that they told no one at first. The problem remains.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I covered this above when you mentioned Matthew previously.

Oh, did you?

Yes I did.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Your point? A book can heavily borrow from another book and be much longer

True, but sometimes you people (skeptics) make it seem as if Matthew got everything from Mark...and my question is, how do you figure? Matthew has stuff in his book that Mark doesn't, now where would he have gotten it from? Hmmmm.

Where did I say he got everything from Mark?

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Reading through the information you posted here I find it lacking, the first explanation is "One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage"" This is rather odd, if both books were written by jewish authors shouldn't they have a common understanding of what should be in a genealogy according to thier rules? Especially since your source says that the Jewish people were meticulous in genealogy keeping.

That depends on from what perspective they are writing, and I am not too sure as to whether Luke was a Christian convert from Judaism, or Christian convert from paganism. Don't know...and if either of those two are true, then that would be why his genealogy may be from a different perspective than that of Mark, who was a Jew.

In your introduction you believe in a litteral interperation of the bible, and I assume that you believe the bible is infallible and inspired work of God. Persepective would be irrelevent, the genologies should match. However you are trying to explain them away on why they don't match (the contradiction). This would suggest a human perspective without inspiration would it not?

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The second explanation isn't any better "Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s" Given how women were typically regarded during this time frame a genealogy of mary doesn't really make sense either.

Good point, because that is another point worth emphasizing...women were regarded as low class in that society, yet it is women that discovered the empty tomb, which is an embarrassment factor that I am having a hard time believing Jewish men from that time and society would concoct a story with the women being so lucky as to discover the tomb empty, while the men of the story were looked at as ignorant unbelieving wimps who were constantly rebuked for their ignorance and lack of faith.

Embarsment factor isn't evidence, and in looking at the gospels the disciples pretty much called bullshit when the women told them of the events at the tomb until Jesus appeared before them or one of them went to the tomb, depending on which gospel you are reading.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Something else to point out is how can Jesus have a genealogy if he was the son of an all powerful god that impregnated a virgin woman?

Ever heard of immaculate conception???

Yes and your point? The genology was on Jesus not Joseph

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Based on what Richard Carrier has presented, and what I've been able to read thus far in his book, yes that is what I get out of it.

In his debate with Dr. Craig, Carrier was smoked out of the arena. He presented his best case against the Resurrection, and he admittedly lost. He doesn't believe that Jesus ever existed, so I wouldn't expect him to give the Gospels any kind of validity.

Carrier has grown alot and done much more research since that debate, he did lose but he wasn't well prepared to go against Craig.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This point is made because none of the other gospels mention this flight to egypt the ones written before and after Matthew, this is what could suggest editing.

Or it could mean the story is true, one account just doesn't mention it, while the other account does.

You mean 3 accounts don't mention it, and one does.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I already dealt with the papias argument above Smile

Did you?

Yes I did

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  These would be professions of faith, in other words theological arguments

I am saying; what is theological about saying "a lot of people went through the trouble of writing about what had occurred, and after investigating things for myself, here is what I gather".

What is theological about that?

Nothing about that specific statement, however the whole thing reads as a theological argument when you read the text in whole. You still have the hersay problem though, and lack of extra-biblacal sources.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
20-07-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 4:
(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  That makes the entire gospel of luke hearsay, as the supposed eyewitnesses didn't write the book, the author of Luke did

But the book is corroborated by other books, plus Paul's epistles. Besides, this isn't a court of law. If you believe that Luke was lying about the fact that some people took the time to write/pass down information regarding a man's life, then you have every right to do so.

At this point, it isn't necessarily about the INFORMATION within the Gospels that is questionable, it is the question of whether the author of Luke is lying or telling the truth about something so simple as whether people wrote/passed down stories regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

Only with the Gospels are there extra lengths that people go through as to where even the simple, non-theological stuff can't even be believed. If you can't believe the simple stuff, then something like a Resurrection is so far fetched that it makes me wonder whether or not it is even worth the bother.

Given that the resurrection violates natural law, along with the whole 3 hours of darkness that no one bothers to mention in any non biblical text, along with a bunch of basically Jewish zombies that one else mentions either. Then yes I find the ressuretion extreamly far fetched.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is irrelevant as he didn't provide copies or where to find copies of his sources so its rather hard to verify that he investigated everything.

Hey, Christianity came from somewhere, didn't it? Laugh out load

Obviously or it wouldn't exist today. Still, my argument remains.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I would agree with you on the point that whoever wrote Acts did also write luke, the writing style similarities are so profound that this is not in dispute. Modesty is meaningless when the whole thing is hearsay at best

The question is, what are the reasons we have to believe that what Luke is saying is more plausible than not. Look, you to explain the origins of Christianity, and how it spread so far and so fast. The only way this could have occurred is by word of mouth, and much later, written accounts. That is the only way you can explain it, and based on your own dating of the Gospels, Christianity had already reached the highest office in the land before the Gospels were even written (year 64 CE), which is over a 1,000 miles away from where it originated from. That means that word spread rapidly.

So in my opinion, you (in general) need to explain how something like that could have spread so rapidly if there weren't people going around stating that those things occurred (or at least BELIEVED they occurred). So again, Luke stating that many gave accounts of what happened, first by eyewitnesses....it all makes sense in light of what we know historically happened from sources that aren't even Christian friendly.

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Christianity

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is a rather important question to answer isn't it? My argument is that neither one of them wrote it. Based on the writing style of John there were probably three different authors all adding to it at different times, The first author is hearsay telling of an eyewitness story possibly prior to the destruction of the temple, the second author adds to the the Jonathan theology, and the third author edits it to the text that we see today.

So you, and other modern day people have a difference of opinion than individuals living within 100 years of the events. Now, 100 years after the fact may seem long, but if that is long, then what do we call individuals who are living over 2,000 years after the events? If we can't trust the early Church fathers, why should we trust modern day men?

Because modern day men have the scientific method, linguistic analysis, fragments of records, complete records as well, physical evidence, checks and balances against bias, free flow of information.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The point is, again, two of the alleged Gospel writers weren't even disciples, yet, they have been attributed authorship of the sacred Gospels??!!! It just doesn't get any more modest than that, in my opinion.

Modesty is not evidence, and is irrellivent.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I just showed you the smoking gun above, also what case? The consensus is that John was written between 90-100 CE.

All of the dates are speculative. Now there are good speculation, and bad speculation. I need to know WHY the Gospels are said to be written that late. What is the case? I built mines.

The dates are based on lingustic analysis, you can determine when something was written based on the language contained withn the document, For example in the modern age a document containing lol for laugh out loud would have to be written past 1990. It is also useful for determining if different people wrote and if they wrote at different times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
20-07-2015, 02:52 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2015 03:49 PM by Worom.)
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 5:

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  It's also worth noting that by fragments, I really mean fragments pieces smaller than the size of postcards, the oldest complete documents we have date around the 4th century. It's also worth noting that this bible is very different than the one we see today
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/...s=PM:WORLD

Nonsense. The earliest manuscript we have is P52, which, even among the later date folks, is said to have been written around 175 CE...which is about 150 years after the crucifixion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Li...52#Date...

That wiki link is highly cited, btw.

And that "150 years after-the-fact" stuff...other classical works don't even COMPARE to the New Testament. Now sure, you did say "oldest complete copy", but we do know that the books were around well before then.

That is why I specifically said, complete document. I didn't say anything about the age of the fragments in the argument I made just above. By the way that fragment you linked did prove my point about fragments being small. The one you linked to is the size of a small postcard.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Hold on a second here
Both luke and John describe the location of where Jesus was, if I read your argument correctly, the author of john including jesus asking philip is not exactly an argument, it shows that the authors of john felt it necessary to add that part in there at best. I'm sorry but this argument makes no sense.

The book of John doesn't state where the feeding of the 5,000 took place. That is the point, Jesus asked Phillip where to buy food because he knew that they were in a place that Phillip was familiar with..but we don't know of their location unless we read Luke, and once we read Luke, we can see why Jesus would have asked Phillip the question, because they were in Phillips home town. That is the point.

Read the following

Luke: 9:10 And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Pete
John: 6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
6:3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
6:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6:6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
6:7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
6:8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, (6:8-9) "Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes."
6:9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
6:10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand

The mentioning of John being from bethesda takes place before the feeding of the 5000, but there is still an issue here, Jesus asking Philip about where to buy bread isn't expicit in that they are in Bethsaida. You seem to be making the connection of well Philip knows the area they must be in Bethsaida. But I still really don't see the point of this?

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I like my proof in the form of evidence, not of modest storytelling, as for coincidences, I don't see one when both books mention the location, one just happens to mention Jesus asking a specific person. I fail to see the connection. It's interesting that you mention no stunt that god can't perform, it begs the question of why would Jesus need to even ask philip where to buy food if he is just going to will it into existence?

Well, hey...you can't please everyone, I guess. That did it for me. But to answer the question he didn't need to ask Phillip, as I SAID, he wanted to use someone that he knew would respond in an unfaithful way so he could prove that God can do all things, even when man thinks otherwise.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
20-07-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 6:

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This isn't a coincidence it's a contradiction

Dude, again...you seem to have a problem coming to the realization that everyone doesn't tell the same story the same way. Some people are more vivid, more detailed than others. Others explain things in a nutshell, getting straight to the point. There isn't anything contradictory about it.

And you seem to fail in understanding what a contradiction is, adding flair to a story is fine but outright opposing eachother is a whole different problem.

con·tra·dic·tion
ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
synonyms: denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering
"a contradiction of his statement"

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Agreed on the authenticity of who wrote 1 Corinthians. It may be confirming what the other gospels state, however as you yourself stated 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a creed, which is a profession of faith not evidence. Which mentions scriptures as well, so Paul was pulling that information from other documents.

He met an eyewitness, though...and he claimed to have witnessed the Resurrected Jesus himself. Either he was lying, or telling the truth. Which is it.

Authentic just means he wrote it, it does't mean that He wasn't lying or greatly exaggerating the events.

(18-07-2015 07:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Galatians is also considered to be authentic, He could be lying or at least stretching the truth, keep in mind that the epistles are letters that Paul wrote well 7 of them anyway, he could have said anything in the letters he wanted to, especially since he was trying to bolster the faith of the early church.

Well, enlighten me on what part is he lying, what part is he stretching the truth, and what part is he telling the truth...and while you are at it, do the same thing with every other ancient document. Apply the same level of skepticism with other ancient writings like you do the New Testament, or better yet, lets just negate the entire genre of history, while we are at it.



(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I think you meant that Christian religion started before the gospels, along with the belief in Jesus

Yeah, I will assume that belief in George Washington will precede any biography written about him. But maybe that is just me tho.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  , this is of course possible but doesn't help your case Smile

Yes it does. The earlier, the better.

My spell check was't working right, ill go through and spell check later

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
24-07-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Hmm I can't seem to edit my posts for spelling, oh well I await your response Call of the Wild

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
25-07-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Working on part 3 right now...
Find all posts by this user
26-07-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Part 1

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Biblical sources are not historical, this is part of our entire debate, you have yet to show that the Bible is a historical document.

A historical document? Wait a minute, so just because the 66 books that were compiled together (the Bible) has some particular things in it that you don't like or agree with, that makes it an unreliable source when it comes to recording history??

Sorry Charlie, you have to do better than that. First off, enlighten me on what is the criterion at which you can establish whether or not a document or book can be considered historical. Of course, I can then play the role of super skeptic like most of you people on this forum, and just systematically deny and call into question every single piece of the so called "evidence" that you give me. I should be able to play that game too, right?

Again, you can't logically deny the claims of the the Bible just because it says things that you don't agree with, because after all, no one alive today was living 2,000+ years ago, so no living person today can know for certainty what went down during those times..so all we can do is state what the evidence seems to show, and from my perspective, the evidence seems to suggest that what the Gospels say took place actually occurred..and you obviously disagree, but let's try not to make absolute statements such as "the bible doesn't record history" and things like that, because unless you were there, you don't know what the hell went down, now do you??

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also what extra-biblical sources? I have yet to find a source that doesn't suggest forgery.

Josephus is the only real interpolation that took place in extra-biblical sources, and even with his account, words were added in, not taken out. If you omit the passages that were added, you are still left with a man named Jesus who started a particular religious movement from which Christianity was founded.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  If you are referring to the annals of Tacticus the only mention of a Jesus is in a single paragraph in one his books, and even then the wording he used is inconsistent suggestting that section was forged in.

Forged in? Forged in by who? A Christian? It is clear to anyone that reads the passage that the author is not exactly Christian friendly. A Christian wouldn't have called the resurrection a "mischievous superstition" nor would a Christian have said that the Christians during that time were "hated for their enormities".

This is just an example of unbelievers searching for something that simply isn't there. Now I will grant you the interpolation of the Josephus account all day long, but this one I ain't buying.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Especially his use of the word Christiani as the split between Judisim and Christanity didn't occur until after the 1st century CE and didn't fully complete until at the earliest the 2nd century.

Christiani? What?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since the authors were appearing to want to create some type of historcal record they would want thier writings to be taken as non-fiction.

Then Christopher Columbus never existed and the entire story of him coming to America was just a fantasy story made up by the Italians to create a name for themselves and thereby getting their heritage on the map.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  However, the point must be made that intent is only a very small piece of the puzzle. And given the rough timeframe that the gospels were written and what was going on in the Jewish world a the time with discontent between the Jews and the Romans resulting in a revolt in 66 CE and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE there would have been serious motives to try and alter the Jewish faith because one of the core pieces of the religion(the temple) had been destroyed by the romans with no intent of it being rebuilt. The amount of trauma this caused to the Jews can't be understated and left them with trying to answer the four questions below.

Dude, Paul was already called upon to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles...this was before 66 CE. The distinction was already made between the Jews and the Gentiles, and again, Paul's epistles predate the Gospels. So basically, you have Christianity already spread from Jerusalem to Corinth by the decade of the 50's CE...just 20 years or so after the cross. That is early stuff, bro.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  How to achieve atonement without the Temple?
How to explain the disastrous outcome of the rebellion?
How to live in the post-Temple, Romanized world?
How to connect present and past traditions?

Christianity had already reached Rome BEFORE the destruction of the Temple. That is the point. You keep talking about stuff that happened later, when the Christianity was already out of control decades before the stuff you keep mentioning.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Seems to me that the efforts to try and answer those questions could result in a whole new religion.

Paul's epistles...

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I mentioned this to disprove the point that biographies are always written about a real life person that you tried to make.

The question is what is the author's INTENT.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  It's not apples and oranges, the entire debate i've been presenting evidence to you that the Biblical accounts are not historical and that the dates you attribute to them are not the actual dates that they were written. Since the Bible is not a historical doucment by my argument then Jesus of Nazarath is just as Fictional as Jean Luc Picard or Santa Claus.

Yet, the vast majority of historians, whether believers or unbelievers, believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Show me a link at which one historian believes that Jean Luc Picard existed, or Santa Claus.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is pretty simple actually.

1. Do the events, people, or places described violate the known laws of nature?

This assumes that the laws of nature cannot be violated, which is circular reasoning, therefore...fallacious.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  2. Is there any evidence of the events, people, or places described?

That depends on what evidence is sufficient enough for YOU.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Those two criterion may be a bit of an oversimiplification on my part, in any case though rule one must always be passed before you can move on to rule two

Since #1 was fallacious, moving to 2 was easy Laugh out load

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The Q source would have predated the gospels true, but if the Q source documents existed they have been completly lost. And we don't know if the Q Source was independent, who wrote it, or really much about it. So no real help to your argument here, I brought up the hypothesis to make a point about the gospels not being eyewitness accounts and that there are alternative explinations, the Q source being a rather weak once on the Theologist standpoint.

If they are lost, so what? The Q source isn't my hypothesis...it isn't required for any argument that I am making, so to hell with it Laugh out load

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Irrelivant, it still causes problems with your argument of the gospels being eyewitness accounts, an eyewitness wouldn't need a "Jesus greatest sayings" document if they were actual eyewitnesses to the events.

But I am not using the alleged Q source for my argument. You were the one that first mentioned it, not me. I actually agree with you, an eyewitness wouldn't need such a source. But then again, even if there is such a source...what do you have? A collection of the sayings of Jesus, but if he never existed, why would there be a collection of his sayings?? Ohh, just a concocted list of sayings based on this mythical figure that never even existed?? Dodgy

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I did't make that argument and that is not what the Farrer Hypothesis says either, the hypothesis makes the argument that Mark was written first, Matthew was written using Mark as a source document, and Luke was written last using Mark and Matthew as source documents. This doesn't mean the entire thing was copied word for word into the other two gospels, the similarity in narrative and wording and order all suggest a common source. Hence the Gnostic problem, that this hypothesis is trying to solve for. The length of a book is irrelivent to it being used as a source document.

Yeah but my focus is on the differences, not the similarities. Ok, they all share a common source, but since there are differences, one can only wonder why each one has narratives that the others don't have...so what do we make of it?? I have my own hypothesis, and one doesn't need to be a biblical scholar or historian to formulate a hypothesis on it, because that is all those guys do anyway.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The source is cited for you to review, But to expand on it, ACTS was a rather obscure document even until the 5th century CE. And provides some history of Christianity and seems to have escaped a good bit of editing by the early christians as demonstrated here.

"The Lord whom we read of in the epistles appears to be a real figure from history, seemingly resurrected as the story begins, and seen by many at that time. Those who saw him c. 35 CE, as reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, were expecting action as implied by their eschatological beliefs. The Lord, as Messiah, would lead mankind through the last days, but his mission either failed or was indefinitely postponed, and Paul was the last to see him. The story had no end and the sightings petered out. The believers waited eagerly, but died disappointed, with Paul anxious to reassure those who feared they would die before the Lord manifested himself to all (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:13-17).

When I read Acts, it doesn't appear as if believers were expecting Christ to return within their lifetimes. That is not what I get out of reading Acts. The purpose of Acts was to tell readers how Christianity spread following the ascension of Christ.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The Gospel account, on the other hand, has the Lord resurrected--not at the beginning of the story--but at the end of a prefacing drama inserted before the sightings occurred, giving an account of an earthly life. The drama ends with death and then Resurrection, now presented as a glorious fulfilment of his mission. The story that had no ending now becomes the ending itself, but of another story. The subsequent eternal waiting was forgotten at first, but later reentered Christian doctrine as a required vigil rather than a disappointment, with the faithful awaiting a parousia at some unspecified future date."

That is one hellava interpretation of the Gospel's that I don't agree with.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  And you're proof that Luke is the author is?

I don't have "proof". I have reasons that I believe Luke to have written the book, and I believe those reasons are more plausible than not. That is like me asking you what is your proof that Ben Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence. You weren't there, so how do you know? Well, you build a case as to why you believe he signed it, and thats all we can do about anything that was written in antiquity.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The same arguemet I used for a cliff hanger story can be used here, if your trying to make a document look like it was written earlier than it was this would be a good way to do it.

Or you could just state that Paul wrote the book of Acts, and the book of Luke. That is the point, Luke was not the leader of any Church, he wasn't a disciple, he never met Jesus, etc. So why would a tradition at which this lesser known individual ever have circulated? Unless the situation simply IS what it IS, and Luke wrote the book whether we like it or not.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Paul the apostle died around 67 CE according to the apologetic websites so im being very generous on the date here.

Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  However the earliest date that Luke was written is 85 CE. My source for the date is listed on the first debate post I made.

I find that date unlikely based on the destruction of the Temple. You just don't leave that kind of information out of the book, especially when other things in the book at pointed out, things that have to do with nothing being mentioned...but no mention of the destruction of the Temple? Uh uh.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  And since Luke and Acts have the same author, there is no way paul could have written a document that dates to well after he died.

Huh?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  There is a method to determine authorship of a document and four categories that the authorship can fall into.

How do we determine the authorship of a document.
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it?
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors?
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written?
4. Are there other records outside the work that make mention of the author and his works?

Once that is done along wth some other linguistc comparisions one of four authorship categories categories can be assigned to the work

1. the person who is named in the book,
2. someone else, who has been identified,
3. someone who has not been identified, but who has also written particular other texts, or
4. an unknown author.

So lets apply these criterion to the gospels using the arguments I've made thus far.

Mark:

1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues show two authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? Lingustic clues show that Mark had one author writing around 65 CE and another author writing around 80 - 90 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

Matthew:
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Possibly a single author, but an edit may be present from a second author which is disputed
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? Lingustic clues suggest authorship between 70CE and 100CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

Luke:

1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues suggest composite document of multiple authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? The document being written as a compiliation and the lingusitic style suggest around 85-100 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

John:
1. Does the document make a claim on who wrote it? No
2. Do the linguistic clues in the document suggest a single author or multiple authors? Linguistic clues indicate three authors.
3. What linguistic clues are in the language style that can be used to determine the date the document was written? The clues show that the dates would be around 100 CE
4. Are there other contempary records outside the work that confirm the authorship? No

With the exception of what Paul wrote, the gospels all fall into category 4.

The only problem with all of that is, if someone wanted to play the role of super skeptic, one could easily argue-down each of those categories. Just take any document, letter, or book that was written in antiquity of which we are sure that we know who wrote it, and give me the reasons why author x wrote it, and I can easily argue down every point that you make. It would be just that easy.

Christianity is about the life, teachings, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is said to have had 12 disciples that accompanied him throughout his ministry. Now, if the goal was to spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the entire world, and one avenue that was used was four specific books written about Jesus' life...I just don't see how it would ever get to the point where friends of the disciples who never even met Jesus would get the credit for writing one of Jesus' biographies.

That, to me is the biggest reason why I think the authorship of the Bible is accurate.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  None of the gospels bothered to mention who wrote them so the time difference is irrellevent

But then again, we are also talking about stuff that predates the Gospels. Again, the origins of Christianity doesn't begin with the Gospels.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and the church fathers had bias and motive to attribute an authorship.

What bias' did the church fathers have in favor of attributing the book of Mark and the book of Luke...to Mark, and Luke? Not to mention the fact that bias' are independent of truth value.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and motive to attribute an authorship.
, You could be a month removed or 10,000 years removed from the source document, if no one bothered to mention who wrote the thing in the orginal document or by contempories then there is no way to know at all.

Yeah, but again, the problem with that is even if the Gospels were written by Jesus himself, and it said "I, Jesus, wrote these books"...even if that were the case, one could still systematically doubt this and say "Ahh, how do we know that Jesus ACTUALLY wrote it, it could have been one of his disciples that wrote it and attributed to him."

Kind of like how in your above quotes you gave forth the option that the book of Acts could have been written by an author who wanted to make it seem as if it had been written earlier, remember that?

Again, a person can systematically doubt anything and even if we could prove with historical accuracy that the books were written by whom Christians believe they were written by, all the unbeliever would do is simply move the goal posts further. Then the question may become "So what, we know who wrote them, but that doesn't mean that what they wrote is actually true"....or something along those lines.

But that won't work, because even though we dont "know" who wrote the Gospels (or anything in antiquity), just because we don't know who wrote them has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of what was written. In other words, every single word in the Gospels COULD be true DESPITE not knowing who wrote it. But anyways, all the skeptic would do is move the goal posts, because they aren't interested in believing, they are only interested in attacking (for the most part).

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I went back into the debate and looked at your reasons again, you are basing it entierly on the death of paul, biblical scholars and skeptics both disagree with your dates. Even your own NIV study bible doesn't give those dates either. So again pure and utter speculation on your part.

I have Quest Study Bible, which is an NIV, and the introduction to each book in this particular Bible answers the question of Why read the book...Who Wrote the book...Why was it written...When was it written...To whom was it written...and What to look for.

And in the When was it written part (Acts), the dates are 63-70 CE.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Because an argument is difficult to follow, and doesn't flow well doesn't mean I didn't understand it.

Then I would have expected you to point out the "internal contradiction", you know, the part you do understand.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Here is what the prophecy says:
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

The prophecy wasn't fulfilled, the western wall of the temple complex surived, known also as the wailing wall.

The western wall is not the temple itself now, is it? They were clearly talking about the BUILDINGS of the Temple, as even your Matthew scriptures indicate. Jesus answered them by responding to the BUILDINGS that they brought to his attention...and he was right, because the buildings were destroyed, and not a stone was left upon another, just as he said.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  And this is a lousy prophecy as well, no timeframe is given. A prophecy with no timeline isn't a prophecy. Its like me saying, See ye not all these houses in Phoenix, verily I say unto you there shall not be left here one object upon another. All we need is to wait is a long enough period of time and my "prophecy" will happen eventually.

First off, still; if the Temple/City of Jerusalem was destroyed as history confirms that they were, and Jesus said that they would be destroyed, you would think that the authors would have placed that "minor" little detail in the book. You don't just bypass such an event that affected the very lives of the Jewish community, especially with Jesus stating that this would occur, and especially if you are quick to point out other prophecies that Jesus predicted.

Second, you say that there is no timeline of the prophecy, yet, there is no timeline of the other prophecies in the books, yet when one was fulfilled, the authors are quick to point it out as explicitly as they could "this happened so that X prophecy would be fulfilled" and such.

Third, sure, anything can happen if we wait long enough. It just didn't appear to happen yet. I can't see how, if a Gospel writer is writing that stuff after the city/temple was completely destroyed, as he is writing down what Jesus said in reference to it, how could they not point out to the readers that the prophecy was fulfilled.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  I provided my source for this conclusion, so the assertation is far from blank.

Must of missed it.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  The prophecy wasn't fulfilled in the way Jesus prediceted it, the western wall of the temple complex still exists. And yes the destruction of the temple was a massivley traumatic event in the Jewish community, I mention this above.

And as just mentioned, they were talking about the buildings within the complex. The keyword is "buildings", and the buildings were completely destroyed.


(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  His biographies actually are within 200-400 years

Right, but even according to your view, all of the Gospels were written in the late first century with John being the last, written around 90-100 CE. That is still within the century of when the events took place.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  the article you posted mentions there are 5 main sources dating from 100 BCE to 300 CE. Also thank you for posting your source, too bad it hurts your argument rather than supports it. In reading the actual source you posted here is what we have to prove that Alexander the Great existed.

What? That is nonsense. Even if the earliest biography of Alexander the Great dates to 100 BCE, that is STILL 200 years after his death. He died around 323 BCE. You do the math. The events in his biography were written well past when they occurred. Yet, Paul is preaching the word and recognizing Jesus as a historical figure in the 50's CE, only a mere 20 years after the events at which they occurred.

It is no contest, bruh.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  5 Main sources all biographies, describing his life in different aspects including his military career and and life itself. 1 source is called out for geographical errors, military knowledge ignorance, and chronology. However the focus that author had was on the character of Alexander the great, one other source also points out it was focused more on his morality. The other three are much stronger historical sources. The date span is of course concerning, however we have more sources than just these documents. Such as the Greek epigraphy that your source mentions, along with mentions of him in oriental tradition. Throw in incidential sources on top of that and you have a strong case for Alexander the Great existing.

Regardless, still 200-400 years afterwards, pimp Laugh out load

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Compare that to the Gospels that all contradict each other when trying to describe the same events

That is your opinion.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and that there are no extra-biblacal sources around the gospels either.

That is an unjustified level of criterion. All of the words in the Bible could be regardless of whether or not there are extra-biblical sources to corroborate it.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Not to mention all the supernatural events that supposedly took place that no one else bothered to mention.

This was before the times of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. Most people couldn't read or write during those times. News by word of mouth, obviously...and the book of Acts records how fast Christianity was spreading despite none of the modern day conveniences we are fortunate enough to have with us today.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again he can say anthing in his letters

Well, then so can anyone else in history who has ever written anything that you have no problem giving credibility to.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  and why do you keep going back to the same section in Corinthians? I have stated repeatedly that its a creed and you agreed it was a creed, its not evidence.

Right, and the last I checked, creeds could be true. The information within this creed could be true, and the reason I keep going back to Corinthians is because it helps demonstrate the EARLY belief in the Resurrection, that predates the Gospels, which are in question.

And since we are talking about the dating of the Gospels, it is worth mentioning a book that is independent of the Gospels, that was written EARLIER than the Gospels, that confirms the overall central message of the Gospels.

That is the point.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Corinth may be far away from Jerusalam, but even back then you could take a boat from the coast of isreal and get to corinth pretty quickly.

Train, plane, automobile, boat, ship, walking, running, horseback, swimming, teleportation...whatever it takes to get the job done.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also something to keep in mind is that Judiasm and Christanity didn't completly split until sometime in the 2nd century CE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_e...nd_Judaism

The roots might have begun earlier than 50 CE, but until sometime in the 2nd century it was still considered a jewish sect. So us skeptics are justified in saying that Christianity didn't exist in the 1st century.

The book of Acts records Gentiles being converted...Philip converted the Ethopian (Acts 8:26-40), and Peter converted Cornelius (Acts 10), and it is clear in Acts 10:45 that the Holy Spirit was granted to the Gentiles as well.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Modesty is meaningless, evidence is what counts. Uhm Luke was written by the time Papais supposedly made his account, so he could have easily read Luke and then made his account harmonize with the preface of Luke.

Wow, you are really reaching, aren't you, bro? Laugh out load

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again accounts written by people that didn't actually witness the event is hearsay.

Name me one of those authors of Alexander the Great that witnessed the events.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  Its not a double standard, the biography you pointed out yes was written well after the death of alexander the great and a historian would point that out as an issue if those biographies were the only source, also there is a biography much closer to his death around 200 years. As well as several sources of confirming evidence. Which you would have read above in one of my prior arguments..

Ohh, confirming evidence? 200 years is still further away from the event than ANY Gospel or Epistle, isn't it?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  This was a math goof on my part, was looking at his date of death in error, but this doesn't hurt my argument as 45 years is still a good bit of time.

45 years of a tradition saying that Mark, companion of Peter, wrote a book on the life of Jesus?

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  There are of course exceptions to average lifespans, however anyone above 48 would be rare back in the 1st century. Living past 60 would be almost unheard of. The idea of anyone living to 116 in the 1st century would be proposterous. Its extremely rare even today with all our medical technology for people to get past 100.

But remember, my argument is that at the very least, the information within the Gospels are accounts BY eyewitnesses, meaning that the information within the books would obviously precede the dates that the information was written down. Which just so happens to harmonize with what Luke says in his preface, the information was originally passed down from eyewitnesses, and [NOW] he (Luke) began to write up an account of the information.

So even if the authors were dead by the time they reached age 48, they had already gotten the message out.

(20-07-2015 02:41 PM)Worom Wrote:  My logic wasn't invalid, my date was a bit off. Your logic is invalid though in comparing current exceptions to the life expectancy of around 77 to the life expectancy of someone living 2000 years ago.

But this is irrelevant anyway, the fact of the matter is that they got the message out before they died, regardless of whatever age they were when they died.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: