If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Scientists pinpoint exact date of Christ's death. Resurrection still up for debate   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 493
    More: Cool, Christ, Richter magnitude scale, Gospel of Matthew, Dead Sea, geosciences, Pontius Pilate, archaeologists, carbon datings  
•       •       •

21623 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2012 at 1:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



493 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-25 09:07:36 PM

The Name: 1st-3rd century


Probably should have said "2nd-4th century." Just thought I'd correct that before anyone jumped on me.
 
2012-05-25 09:24:01 PM

The Name: which is the kind of historical/textual nihilism that I am arguing against.


No, you are arguing against the assertion that Jesus Christ could not possibly have existed. I don't think anyone outside of dumbass atheists with an axe to grind is claiming that. I am in agreement that most everything written historically is at the very least based on core truths. Anything more specific than that, however, is speculative.

Did Jesus exist? ....probably. Did he do anything the Gospels say he did? ....probably not.
 
2012-05-25 09:42:54 PM

Ishkur: No, you are arguing against the assertion that Jesus Christ could not possibly have existed. I don't think anyone outside of dumbass atheists with an axe to grind is claiming that. I am in agreement that most everything written historically is at the very least based on core truths. Anything more specific than that, however, is speculative.

Did Jesus exist? ....probably. Did he do anything the Gospels say he did? ....probably not.


Fair enough. I personally think we can take some basic, non-miraculous episodes in the gospels as historical fact, but we need not spar over such a minor difference of opinion.

I just thought your language in that passage I quoted was a gross exaggeration of the degree of change the gospels have undergone, but what you just said seems to moderate that point. I think you and I agree more than we disagree.
 
2012-05-25 11:29:32 PM
I like how people constantly try to deny Jesus' very existence. Most historians agree that a figure similar to the non-mystical parts of the Gospels' description of Jesus existed around that time.

Hell, even most Jews accept that He lived. And if there's any group who could benefit from the whole "Jesus going away" thing, it's the Jews. It's sort of been a big reason for their persecution over the centuries.
 
2012-05-26 12:14:10 AM

The Name: czetie: But it's also true that many changes -- even entire interpolated passages -- date to much later, even centuries later. And this is true not only of the gospels but of all ancient documents.

Citation?

I hear this all the time -that significant changes were made to the gospels even centuries after they were written- but I have never seen anyone come up with an example recognized by scholarship. The only one I can think of is the addition of the resurrection to Mark, and I think even that change is indicated by a single manuscript in which the resurrection is missing.

I think people tend to base their perception of the gospels' historical reliability on cliches about history rather than what historians have actually discovered and theorized. "It's all just one big game of telephone" -yes, to a certain extent, but there are reasons to believe that even products of the telephone game can be reasonably reliable. When stories are put in a liturgy they tend not to change much, because they have already been put in a form which was important to memorize exactly. Also, writings can change due to scribal prejudices and errors, but scribes did not just go about willy-nilly changing things the way some people imply they did. There is no manuscript evidence that the gospels changed in any fundamental way since their first writing, and foisting one big haphazard game of telephone onto them because "that's how all history is written" is very bad history.

"History is always written by the victors" -sort of, but even those victors usually had to produce histories that were halfway convincing to their contemporaries. Even when massaging the truth a bit, some actual history has to be included for the propaganda enterprise to work. And who knows, maybe some ancient writers of history actually weren't craven, unscrupulous propagandists -just a thought.


Bart Ehrman gave a detailed rebuttal of the idea that there were just a few unimportant changes made to the Bible:

Especially in the first 300 years, copyists made many changes to the texts - some just mistakes, some to 'correct' what they believed were other's mistakes, and some to deliberately 'make clear' a passage which 'heretics' were misusing.

Some stories added later. The Woman Taken In Adultery John 7:53-8:12(what happened to the man, since she was taken 'in the very act of adultery'?) lot of evidence that it was added in later (very different writing style from rest of John, especially the verses before and after, and includes a large number of words and phrases that bare found nowhere else in the Bible). But main reason we know it's an add-on is that it doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Other scribes inserted it in different places - after John 21:25, and after Luke 21:38. Leaves readers with a problem - if it wasn't in the original Bible, should it be considered part of the Bible or not?

Similarly the ending of Mark has been tacked on. In the two earliest copies, Mark ends with the women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone "for they were afraid". This is a problem, because how did the disciples learn of J's resurrection? So the new bit about seeing signs, speaking in tongues and laying hands on the sick was added on later. Scholars postulate that the original copy of Mark lost a page with the true ending, and later scribes fixed the lack of ending with one of their own.

more detail here
 
2012-05-26 01:04:07 AM
Benevolent Misanthrope:

Religious texts written centuries after their subjects supposedly lived are not a scientific primary source

simplicimus:

But the 4 Gospels in the NT are 100 or so years after the events

Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Ishkur:

Because the New Testament is not a valid historical source -- it's dogma. It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations, in many languages, to suit the purposes of power for kings, clergy and aristocrats. It is not pure. We do not have any of the Gospels in their original form.

On top of that is the heinous act of omission that occurred in the first few centuries. There were nearly 60 gospels written about the life of Jesus. Only FOUR of them made it into New Testament canon. Some others are semi-canonical or apocryphal, but nearly all of them were either destroyed, discredited, censored or branded as heresy.

What did these other Gospels say? They could have given us a wealth of additional information on Jesus, his life, his death and his ministry. But then again, there's a reason why they were censored in the first place: It's because they were anti-thetical to the selected Christian dogma of Jesus being God. In order to enforce Biblican certainty, the early church only accepted the most exalted gospels that affirmed each other, and attempted to eradicate any and all rogue gospels that countered such claims -- and there were a lot of different perceptions of Jesus in those days.

This is why the New Testament is not a reliable source. It does have some true stuff in it, but it's leaving out so much more. It's not telling the full story.


Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'

Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.
 
2012-05-26 01:51:51 AM
OK, I'll play...


Bevets: Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'

Begging the question, are we? He didn't say that happened to EVERY word, he said that the Bible as a whole underwent those things, and it's absolutely true.
www.readthespirit.com

Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.

I'll give you four:

img2.imagesbn.comimg2.imagesbn.comimg2.imagesbn.comimg2.imagesbn.com
 
2012-05-26 01:59:43 AM

Bevets: Benevolent Misanthrope:

Religious texts written centuries after their subjects supposedly lived are not a scientific primary source

simplicimus:

But the 4 Gospels in the NT are 100 or so years after the events

Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Ishkur:

Because the New Testament is not a valid historical source -- it's dogma. It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations, in many languages, to suit the purposes of power for kings, clergy and aristocrats. It is not pure. We do not have any of the Gospels in their original form.

On top of that is the heinous act of omission that occurred in the first few centuries. There were nearly 60 gospels written about the life of Jesus. Only FOUR of them made it into New Testament canon. Some others are semi-canonical or apocryphal, but nearly all of them were either destroyed, discredited, censored or branded as heresy.

What did these other Gospels say? They could have given us a wealth of additional information on Jesus, his life, his death and his ministry. But then again, there's a reason why they were censored in the first place: It's because they were anti-thetical to the selected Christian dogma of Jesus being God. In order to enforce Biblican certainty, the early church only accepted the most exalted gospels that affirmed each other, and attempted to eradicate any and all rogue gospels that countered such claims -- and there were a lot of different perceptions of Jesus in those days.

This is why the New Testament is not a reliable source. It does have some true stuff in it, but it's leaving out so much more. It's not telling the full story.

Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'

Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.


Good morning Bevets.
 
2012-05-26 02:39:51 AM

The Name: I think you and I agree more than we disagree.


We do. I was just questioning your claim that we can trust the Gospels more than we can trust any other historical source (or, at least, that's how your claim came off as). I think we can trust the Gospels, but I don't think we can trust them as much as the Roman historians. That is, I feel that the Romans were more meticulous in their record-keeping than the Jews were. But neither should be trusted unconditionally. History didn't seriously start being regarded as an investigative science until the Enlightenment.
 
2012-05-26 02:56:39 AM

Bevets: Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'


gospelgo.com

(If you can't read Aramaic, you're not reading the actual Gospels. As I previously explained, you're reading a fifth hand interpretation of a fourth hand source written by a third generation of commentators on a second hand event)

Bevets: Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.


all of them.

To censor, discredit or destroy any aspect of religious history for no reason other than personal or professional preference is morally and spiritually offensive.
 
2012-05-26 03:17:22 AM

Ishkur: Bevets: Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'



(If you can't read Aramaic, you're not reading the actual Gospels. As I previously explained, you're reading a fifth hand interpretation of a fourth hand source written by a third generation of commentators on a second hand event)

Bevets: Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.

all of them.

To censor, discredit or destroy any aspect of religious history for no reason other than personal or professional preference is morally and spiritually offensive.


So you're saying that taking quotes out of context, misattributing them and flat out lieing to further ones own religious agenda is wrong?
 
2012-05-26 05:00:07 AM

Ishkur: (If you can't read Aramaic, you're not reading the actual Gospels.


I'm at work and can't really tear into looking this up, but I'm pretty sure they (or at least most) were written in Greek. Folks in 'em *spoke* Aramaic, though.
 
2012-05-26 05:57:22 AM

Relatively Obscure: I'm at work and can't really tear into looking this up, but I'm pretty sure they (or at least most) were written in Greek. Folks in 'em *spoke* Aramaic, though.


To be fair, no one knows what the gospels were originally written in since no surviving copies exist.... the most distributed versions are Greek, since Greek was a far more widely spoken language and those are the earliest copies we have. But Indo-European languages are structured vastly different than semitic languages, and I am compelled to assert that if Jesus orated in Aramaic, then his teachings were likely copied down in Aramaic first. Makes no sense to make a difficult language translation off of that.

Of course this is meant to be a bit of a cheap shot to Bevets: How can he understand scripture as its originally understood if it doesn't exist? ...well, that's his problem, not mine.
 
2012-05-26 05:58:36 AM

Boatmech: So you're saying that taking quotes out of context, misattributing them and flat out lieing to further ones own religious agenda is wrong?


Why yes. Yes I am.
 
2012-05-26 06:22:57 AM

Ishkur: Boatmech: So you're saying that taking quotes out of context, misattributing them and flat out lieing to further ones own religious agenda is wrong?

Why yes. Yes I am.


Would you mind mentioning that to the Bev, he seems to have accidentally placed me on ignore.
;)
 
2012-05-26 07:56:33 AM

The Name: I think one thing that needs to be agreed upon is the DEGREE of change we are talking about. Again, I'm not denying that changes were made to the gospels at any point in time.


Well, you were the one you used the word "significant", and said that you'd never seen a single citation of such a change accepted by scholars...

I'm going to define "significant" as a change that alters either a factual assertion or a theological implication. A change like that can be achieved by adding or deleting a single sentence or phrase, or even changing just one word (for example, from "young girl" to "virgin"). I don't know quite get what your position is at this point, but if you're still asserting that, with perhaps very few exceptions, the degree of intentional change is mere style or emphasis, then we disagree profoundly.

In addition to various big chunks of added or removed material, there are a huge number of textual variations where a small change dramatically changes the meaning -- and not just in the gospels, but also throughout the epistles. Furthermore, in many cases the context of the change makes it clear it was intentional: at a time and place where a specific theological point was being debated, a change was made that provided "support" for one side or the other.

Again, this is a point that is completely uncontroversial among scholars -- and for the most part, those scholars have no more of an agenda than establishing the timeline of changes. Textual history is a fascinating study: if we can reconstruct the textual changes alongside the historical events, it's almost like watching a movie of the formation of the church as it happened.
 
2012-05-26 08:16:28 AM

The Name: czetie: I hate to find myself on the side of defending the gospel writers

Why?


Because this is the internet, and it's full of idiots who will assign everybody to one of two false extremes:
1) If you defend the gospels in any way, you must be a literalist fundamentalist nutjob
2) If you attack the gospels in any way, you must be an atheist fundamentalist nutjob

You will notice that there might just be a teensy-weensy excluded middle there...

The nuanced ideas that the gospels were first written down roughly one generation after the events they purport to describe; that they initially probably reflected the reliable memories of practiced storytellers; and that were edited continuously for several centuries afterwards to support an evolving understanding of the meaning of Jesus' life, work, and death (or, if you prefer to be cynical, to advance a particular faction's agenda): these ideas are utterly uncontroversial among scholars, yet very difficult to argue online without being misrepresented.

Anyway, my point was: I don't want to defend the idea that the gospels as we have them today are unchanged in significant ways from the original texts; but the claim that those texts couldn't reflect reliable memories is an anachronistic view, and not a good basis for criticism.

There's also the often-missed point that the oldest text isn't automatically the "best" text (for purposes other than historical scholarship). For example, if you wanted to understand the history of the Vietnam War, would you be better informed reading the newspapers of the day, a late 1960s anti-war pamphlet, or a professional history written after the Pentagon Papers had been exposed? When judging the changes made to the gospels, a reasonable observer has to admit the possibility that the change was an improvement over the narrow, individual witness of one person caught up in the middle of events. Personal testimony is great for exciting converts, not necessarily great for recording history or explaining theology.
 
2012-05-26 11:49:23 AM
Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Ishkur:

Because the New Testament is not a valid historical source -- it's dogma. It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations, in many languages, to suit the purposes of power for kings, clergy and aristocrats. It is not pure. We do not have any of the Gospels in their original form.

On top of that is the heinous act of omission that occurred in the first few centuries. There were nearly 60 gospels written about the life of Jesus. Only FOUR of them made it into New Testament canon. Some others are semi-canonical or apocryphal, but nearly all of them were either destroyed, discredited, censored or branded as heresy.

What did these other Gospels say? They could have given us a wealth of additional information on Jesus, his life, his death and his ministry. But then again, there's a reason why they were censored in the first place: It's because they were anti-thetical to the selected Christian dogma of Jesus being God. In order to enforce Biblican certainty, the early church only accepted the most exalted gospels that affirmed each other, and attempted to eradicate any and all rogue gospels that countered such claims -- and there were a lot of different perceptions of Jesus in those days.

This is why the New Testament is not a reliable source. It does have some true stuff in it, but it's leaving out so much more. It's not telling the full story.


Bevets:

Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'

Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.


Ishkur:

all of them

Ishkur:

Of course this is meant to be a bit of a cheap shot to Bevets

Ishkur:

I do that deliberately. I like forcing people I don't respect -- and whom I know I don't have any chance of changing their opinion because they're so closeminded -- to spend stupid extra minutes searching and sifting and crufting together replies

Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.
 
2012-05-26 12:13:53 PM

Bevets: Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Ishkur:

Because the New Testament is not a valid historical source -- it's dogma. It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations, in many languages, to suit the purposes of power for kings, clergy and aristocrats. It is not pure. We do not have any of the Gospels in their original form.

On top of that is the heinous act of omission that occurred in the first few centuries. There were nearly 60 gospels written about the life of Jesus. Only FOUR of them made it into New Testament canon. Some others are semi-canonical or apocryphal, but nearly all of them were either destroyed, discredited, censored or branded as heresy.

What did these other Gospels say? They could have given us a wealth of additional information on Jesus, his life, his death and his ministry. But then again, there's a reason why they were censored in the first place: It's because they were anti-thetical to the selected Christian dogma of Jesus being God. In order to enforce Biblican certainty, the early church only accepted the most exalted gospels that affirmed each other, and attempted to eradicate any and all rogue gospels that countered such claims -- and there were a lot of different perceptions of Jesus in those days.

This is why the New Testament is not a reliable source. It does have some true stuff in it, but it's leaving out so much more. It's not telling the full story.

Bevets:

Please give a specific example of a passage that has been 'It has been tampered with, edited, changed, abused, deleted and destroyed many times over, by many cultures over many generations'

Please give an example of a gospel you think should have been included and why you think it should have been included.

Ishkur:

all of them

Ishkur:

Of course this is meant to be a bit of a cheap shot to Bevets

Ishkur:

I do that deliberately. I like forcing people I don't respect -- and whom I know I don't have any chance of changing their opinion because they're so closeminded -- to spend stupid extra minutes searching and sifting and crufting together replies

Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.


Good afternoon Bevets. Since you're here anyway could you explain Why is your Religion any more relevant than the
countless other Religions that are no longer practiced?
 
2012-05-26 12:31:57 PM

Ishkur: Did he do anything the Gospels say he did? ....probably not.


so then what really happened? do tell

show your work

/*gets [citation needed] ready*
 
2012-05-26 12:35:31 PM

Ishkur: all of them.


including the book of mormon?

you really should read the stuff you link
 
2012-05-26 12:38:03 PM

Bevets: Bevets: Bevets:
Ishkur:
I do that deliberately. I like forcing people I
don't respect -- and whom I know I don't have
any chance of changing their opinion because
they're so closeminded -- to spend stupid extra
minutes searching and sifting and crufting
together replies Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.
`
Good afternoon Bevets. Since you're here
anyway could you explain Why is your Religion
any more relevant than the countless other Religions that are no longer practiced?

`
From your
Christian Fundamentals link -


II Peter 1.20 But know this first of all, that no
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God.
Matthew 5.17 "Do not think that I came to
abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come
to abolish, but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and
earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke
shall pass away from the Law, until all is
accomplished.
see also: Inerrancy
`
If I'm reading this correctly, all the writings are straight from god and perfect, yet history has shown that the 4 Gospels promoted today are only a small part of the entire body of work.
Is that correct?
 
2012-05-26 12:43:26 PM

Ishkur: To censor, discredit or destroy any aspect of religious history for no reason other than personal or professional preference is morally and spiritually offensive.


should we censor, discredit or destroy the book of mormon?

why or why not?

how about dianetics...?
 
2012-05-26 12:54:11 PM
`
Bevets

``
Christianity can be distilled down to two
foundational claims: The Resurrection and The
Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address
either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.
`
You know Bev, I've checked both of those links. Do you have any that are not copy pasta clones of themselves?
Repetition is great for brainwashing the masses but it doesn't exactly lend itself to critical thinking.
 
2012-05-26 01:14:14 PM

Ghastly: These threads always remind me of those people who think Robin Hood existed.


Damn.

/takes down shrine in tree grown in closet.
 
2012-05-26 02:36:18 PM

Bevets: Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.


I already did.

I drunk what: so then what really happened? do tell


I already did.

I drunk what: including the book of mormon?


Especially the Book of Mormon.
 
2012-05-26 05:54:00 PM

snowshovel: lisarenee3505: How is it even possible to say what the exact date of death was for someone who never actually existed in the first place?

I'm not sure about that. Doctor Henry Walton Jones (of Barnett College) in 1938 claimed to have found the so-called Holy Chalice, by noting that it was the artifact was the work of "a carpenter." Which would mean that Jesus would've existed if his product existed.


It was 1938, Dr. Jones was still at Marshall College at that point.
 
2012-05-26 06:16:37 PM

Todashy: Ghastly: These threads always remind me of those people who think Robin Hood existed.

Damn.

/takes down shrine in tree grown in closet.


I have a friend who is a world leading expert in Robin Hood mythologies. The most common question he gets asked in interviews was "Did Robin Hood really exist"?

The short answer is "no". The long answer is "nooooooooooooo".
 
2012-05-27 01:48:45 AM
Has anyone ever taken the positive mindset as to why there are no records of Jesus existing? Wouldn't someone in power that is against Christianity want every record of his existence eliminated? They figure if they do that millennia from now people would argue that he never existed because there are no records. The simple-minded probably haven't the ability to fathom the information that has been destroyed over time.
 
2012-05-27 03:13:18 AM

Ghastly: Todashy: Ghastly: These threads always remind me of those people who think Robin Hood existed.

Damn.

/takes down shrine in tree grown in closet.

I have a friend who is a world leading expert in Robin Hood mythologies. The most common question he gets asked in interviews was "Did Robin Hood really exist"?

The short answer is "no". The long answer is "nooooooooooooo".


There is a tomb of "Robert d'Lockslie" outside Nottinghamshire, whom the legend is based on.
 
2012-05-27 10:30:40 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Ghastly: Todashy: Ghastly: These threads always remind me of those people who think Robin Hood existed.

Damn.

/takes down shrine in tree grown in closet.

I have a friend who is a world leading expert in Robin Hood mythologies. The most common question he gets asked in interviews was "Did Robin Hood really exist"?

The short answer is "no". The long answer is "nooooooooooooo".

There is a tomb of "Robert d'Lockslie" outside Nottinghamshire, whom the legend is based on.


`
He has one too



`
and a much better PR network.
 
2012-05-27 10:44:51 AM

Ishkur: I drunk what: so then what really happened? do tell

I already did.


i like the part about the purple monkey dishwasher, it reminds me why your posts appear in hot pink

*salutes*

/needs more butthurt

btw are you the new Kilted 2.0? because i really don't have time to read another series of empty walls of text

unfortunately you seem to be the only IB left that is half way coherent, and isn't a complete troll-douche bag

because even though abbey is still rootin' for ya, he just phones his stuff in now

meh

Ishkur: Especially the Book of Mormon.


i don't follow.

do you understand how Religion works?

or are you trying to side with the people who are obviously doing it wrong...?

do you suggest that we also do our Science in the same manner? perhaps they should also teach astrology, alchemy, etc... alongside them sciencey classes in schools?

we don't want to unjustly censor or destroy information, now do we?

/this is why he's in the IB^
//for those that care
///meh
 
2012-05-27 10:49:53 AM

Ishkur: Especially the Book of Mormon.


also can't help but notice that you didn't answer this post:

I drunk what: Ishkur: To censor, discredit or destroy any aspect of religious history for no reason other than personal or professional preference is morally and spiritually offensive.

should we censor, discredit or destroy the book of mormon?

why or why not?

how about dianetics...?


any particular reason why?
 
2012-05-27 12:44:06 PM
Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:


Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Bevets:

Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.

Ishkur:

I already did.

You have not directly addressed either claim. Instead you have waved away the evidence with a suggestion that it has been corrupted. You apparently cant be bothered to defend any specific examples of your claim or respond to the evidence I have presented.
 
2012-05-27 01:02:21 PM

Bevets: Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Bevets:

Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.

Ishkur:

I already did.

You have not directly addressed either claim. Instead you have waved away the evidence with a suggestion that it has been corrupted. You apparently cant be bothered to defend any specific examples of your claim or respond to the evidence I have presented.


Good afternoon Bevets.
 
2012-05-27 01:23:27 PM

Bevets: Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Bevets:

Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.

Ishkur:

I already did.

You have not directly addressed either claim. Instead you have waved away the evidence with a suggestion that it has been corrupted. You apparently cant be bothered to defend any specific examples of your claim or respond to the evidence I have presented.


Youtube?
 
2012-05-27 01:41:44 PM

Bevets: Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Our earliest accounts are within three years of the resurrection.

Bevets:

Christianity can be distilled down to two foundational claims: The Resurrection and The Deity of Christ. I have not seen you address either of these claims. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to soberly address the topic.

Ishkur:

I already did.

You have not directly addressed either claim. Instead you have waved away the evidence with a suggestion that it has been corrupted. You apparently cant be bothered to defend any specific examples of your claim or respond to the evidence I have presented.


`
Bevets, your evidence apears to be an echo chamber of Reasoning.
`
i.ytimg.com
`
From your link -
`
Search
Gary Habermas: Jesus Was Raised From the
Dead (Part 1)
27:31 16 likes, 0
dislikes
997 views
RatioChristiTV
07/11/11
Watch Video
Share Video
Dr. Gary Habermas, expert on the Resu... ( more )
Related Videos
Gary Habermas: Jesus Was Raised
From the Dead (Part 2)
27:31 5 likes, 0 dislikes
by RatioChristiTV
662 views
The Resurrection: Was it a Hoax?
1:26:15 3 likes, 1 dislikes
by rfvidz
382 views
Did Jesus Really Rise From The
Dead? (NT Wright)
1:37:21 131 likes, 6 dislikes
by rfvidz
17,132 views
What Jesus Said About Resurrection
(2 of 2)
25:30 14 likes, 2 dislikes
by rfvidz
500 views
Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming
Evidence for Jesus' Existence...From
an AGNOSTIC LIBERAL Scholar!
7:19 817 likes, 791 dislikes
by ARudeAwakening4U
95,590 views
View all related videos »
Comments (1)
 
2012-05-27 02:08:01 PM
/appears
 
2012-05-27 04:16:53 PM

I drunk what: or are you trying to side with the people who are obviously doing it wrong...?


How can you tell who's doing it wrong?
 
2012-05-27 04:19:08 PM

I drunk what: do you suggest that we also do our Science in the same manner?


No, because science is not a democracy.

Religion is. Everyone's voice must be heard or you'll never be any closer to the truth.
 
2012-05-27 04:41:12 PM

Bevets: Instead you have waved away the evidence with a suggestion that it has been corrupted.


You don't think the evidence has been corrupted? Let me give you an example why that's a foolish perspective.

There are two claims of Mary's virginity in the New Testament, Luke and Matthew's Gospels. Of the two, Luke's almost certainly makes a claim for a miraculous (virginal) conception for Jesus (not immaculate, mind you. That refers to Mary being born without sin.)

In this, Luke was following a pattern set in the Jewish Bible of miraculous conceptions that God intervened for the line descended from Adam. These interventions were usually because the woman was barren or too old. In each case, normal conception was hopeless, so God intervened with an "impossible" - miraculous - pregnancy (ie: Sarah giving birth to Isaac at age 90).

Luke wanted to affirm this tradition of miraculous conceptions to show how God/God's Spirit overshadowed Jesus from his very conception in Mary's womb. But since Mary was neither aged nor barren, Luke had to come up with a pregnancy-barrier. Hence: Virginity. He did this by invoking Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin will conceive".

This is not exactly a mistranslation. Luke was using the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, the Septuagint, where the Hebrew "marriageble young girl" - almah - was translated in Greek as neanis. Neanis could mean marriageable young girl, or it could equally mean virgin. To create his miraculous conception, Luke used the virgin term and applied it to the special circumstances of Jesus' conception.

Technically, the problem is not mistranslation, it's the placement of meaning. The original Isaian prophecy was not about a miraculous birth or a virginal conception. It was simply about a young girl in the corrupt King Ahaz's harem who would conceive by natural means and bring forth by natural means a son who would rule justly. It was to happen shortly within Ahaz' and Isaiah's lifetimes, not hundreds of years in the future. It did NOT concern a virginal conception. It did NOT refer to a, or the, Messiah. It certainly did NOT refer to Mary and Jesus.

The story is simply Luke's beautiful, clever creation. A parable, an illustration, that God continued, in Jesus' conception, a pattern already set in the Jewish Bible. Not a lie; not a mistranslation; but a literary device, artistically conceived and executed.

There is likely nothing historical behind Luke's tale. If Jesus had really been miraculously conceived, with an Imperial census, trembling shepherds, etc. it would appear in other parts of the New Testament. It doesn't. Jesus himself never tells the disciples about it. Mary is utterly silent. Paul and the other NT writers know nothing about it. The most likely historical scenario - IF ANYTHING AT ALL - would be rumors of a suspiciously early birth for Jesus. The virginal conception narratives then would presumably be answers to any charges of illegitimacy, i.e., "Mary was not unfaithful to Joseph; nor was she raped by a Roman soldier. No, Mary was miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit". But even this historical suggestion is slender at best. The best scenario is that Luke simply created a parable about Jesus' early protection by the Holy spirit.

But if you REALLY want to know what happened, you gotta read the other Gospels. But beware, down coptic and gnostic (booga booga booga) roads this way lies.

Now, howabout you answer my question please.
 
2012-05-27 06:05:21 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: There is a tomb of "Robert d'Lockslie" outside Nottinghamshire, whom the legend is based on.


The Robin Hood legend far predates the existence of any historical individual whose biographical details may have gotten inserted into later versions of the story. In particular, the portrayal of Robin as a nobleman is a fairly late, romantic addition.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "outside Nottinghamshire". Nottinghamshire is a county, so something outside it would be inside some other county. I suppose it's possible you meant "outside Nottingham", which would make more sense. But even then, the oldest traditions associate Robin more with Yorkshire than Nottinghamshire (including a fairly old association with Loxley, Yorkshire.)

So no, the legend absolutely is not based on one "Robert d'Lockslie" with a tomb "outside Nottinghamshire".
 
2012-05-27 11:47:19 PM

ParagonComplex: Has anyone ever taken the positive mindset as to why there are no records of Jesus existing? Wouldn't someone in power that is against Christianity radical cultists threatening the power structure and government of the time want every record of his existence eliminated? They figure if they do that millennia from now people would argue that he never existed because there are no records. The simple-minded probably haven't the ability to fathom the information that has been destroyed over time I think I'm smarter than you.


FTFY

/Protip: Formulate your thoughts based on that part of the world as it existed in 50bce-50ce
 
Displayed 43 of 493 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report