UndecidedFrog Posted August 5, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 5, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear kross, Thank you for your response to my original post (OP). [There is a book called "The Case For CHRIST" written by a journalist/lawyer who was a non-believer who set out to determine whether the story of JESUS would holod up in a court of law. It would directly answer most of your questions. Thanks for the reference. However, I have read Strobel's Case for Christ, and found it very uncompelling and lacking in credible evidence. I doubt any of his arguments would be sustained in a court of law. Mr. Strobel does not even address the pericope adulterae issue that Professor Ehrman has put forth. Two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. (Some say that Mathew and Luke wrote from Marks gospel, I do not see that as likely) Some also say Mark wrote based on dictation from another source. That may or may not be. What we know for certain is that Mathew and John were part of the original twelve disciples who were not only witnesses to the miracles, but also privy to the private teachings. Since the other books do not contradict anything written in these two Gospels, there is no reason to doubt their authors had good information. If Matthew wrote from Mark, clearly the stories have been conflated. In conflated stories, we do not know if he is writing from his own eye-witness account or from someone else's eye-witness account. We do know that what we have today as far as hard evidence are fragments of papyri, none of which date back to the alleged gospels. Hence all the evidence point to books that were not written by any eyewitness, but rather by people who got it at least second or third hand. Yes, there are several contradictions from book to book, and even within the same book (see pericope adulterae issue). The books about Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and are still considered accurate history. For the Bible to be written within the life time of those who walked and talked with JESUS and HIS original twelve is better history than we have for George Washington. I disagree. We have physical evidence of George Washington. We have his wooden teeth. We have his words that he wrote himself. We do not have the same for Jesus. They are not disinterested accounts of what happened. They are the accounts of men who were offered a chance to live by simply denying that JESUS rose from the grave. They chose to die. No-one chooses to die for something they know to be a lie. That is reason enough to believe that they wrote what they knew to be absolute truth. I agree with you that these are not disinterested accounts of what happened. I think they were embellished (to what point, I do not know) to make people believe. Hence, a disinterested account of what happened would be invaluable to my search for the truth. There are many who study the scriptures as if they are some text book. Truth is, and I know this will not sit well, the words are Spirit. Men who do not have the Spirit to understand them, can not understand them. You can always find a reason not to believe, that is why it is called faith. By faith, we read and study and pour over the scriptures and we wait for GOD to reveal truth from them. If HE doesn't, then truth will be allusive. Yes, there are many bible scholars around. I did not know that words are spirit. I did not know that one has to have the Spirit in them to understand these words. What evidence do you have to support this claim? What you are suggesting is redolant of circular reasoning. Some time ago, I asked a christian how does one know if the bible is truth or not? He told me that I had to have the spirit in me to understand the bible as truth. I asked him what this spirit was, and he told me it was faith (the belief without evidence). If I needed to believe without evidence (have faith) in order to understand the truth of the bible, I would not need to read the bible, since I would already have faith. Do you see what I mean by being circular? I am convinced that faith is not the key to the truth. Truth lies in the evidence that supports it. I am sure there are many who will continue to give you good information. Keep asking. I am open to all information. However, I will parse through them with my critical eye. Thanks, I will keep asking. Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted August 5, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted August 5, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear WolfBitn, Thank you for your response. well i find this kinda the lazy way out to ask for evidence and then just push it aside with non of your own to refute it... i dont regard opinion, no offence Offense taken. It is not lazy to point out the meaning of the exact words used from your source. "Probably" is not the same as "definitely". It is not lazy to have examined your source to find it is spouting opinion that (in your own terms) do not have references to support its opinions. Well if you want to take offence thats up to you. My point remains that youve got a source that not only said probobly sated to 2nd century, but stated it was the basis for the latin used by Cyprian which indeed places it 2nd century... now if you simply dont want to accept this no problem, but if you want to argue it, yes i want more than your opinion, i want a reputable source stating that the alexandrian are specificly older than the western he is incorrect. Thats my opinion, based on the fact he is going by the alexandrian manuscripts which are completely corrupt OK, thank you for your opinion. However, if the reason for your opinion is based on the fact that the alexandrian text types are completely corrupt, we should apply that same standard against the western text types. How corrupt are the western text types, if many scholars agree that they are prone to paraphrasing and embellishments? Which version is closer to the original? The one with the pericope adulterae or the one without? Regards, UF This opinion you speak of is both unwarrented and hypocritical. The 'paraphrases' are done because in certain instances there is no one particular way to use one word to interpret into another. You must get the idea of the word across becuase there is no equal in the other language. This was being interpreted from the latin and the paraphrases in quesiton almost always consisted of a word to 2 words. There is the exaggeration of your claim, and now for the hypocritical. The same people making this claim against the western text, are holding to a text that eliminates entire books, eliminate chapters, eliminate sentences, change words tens of thousands of times, trunkates sentences, repeats sentences, and was revised by 10 differant scribes over an 800 to 1200 year period. ^^^They call THAT the most reliable and the oldest lol.. One of the scribes IN THE VERY VATICANUS ITSELF... scolds prior scries for changing the text Jerome even condemened the act, actually accusing leadership of changing the text... Yes youre right about the text being changed, but where youre in error is which text Its the alexandrian... Tell me WHY is it called 'alexandrian'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kross Posted August 5, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,773 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/27/1957 Share Posted August 5, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear kross, Thank you for your response to my original post (OP). Yes, there are many bible scholars around. I did not know that words are spirit. I did not know that one has to have the Spirit in them to understand these words. What evidence do you have to support this claim? What you are suggesting is redolant of circular reasoning. Some time ago, I asked a christian how does one know if the bible is truth or not? He told me that I had to have the spirit in me to understand the bible as truth. I asked him what this spirit was, and he told me it was faith (the belief without evidence). If I needed to believe without evidence (have faith) in order to understand the truth of the bible, I would not need to read the bible, since I would already have faith. Do you see what I mean by being circular? I am convinced that faith is not the key to the truth. Truth lies in the evidence that supports it. I am sure there are many who will continue to give you good information. Keep asking. I am open to all information. However, I will parse through them with my critical eye. Thanks, I will keep asking. Regards, UF I would disagree with that Chritians statement. There is a verse that states, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" it has been butchered by recent interpretations, but what it states is that, "Faith is a pice of what is hoped for" it is a piece of Heaven, or more precisely, a piece of JESUS/ the HOLY SPIRIT. The fact that a person has faith, in the light of what you have pointed to, is the "evidence of that which is unseen". Since I can not give you the experience of being indwelt by the HOLY SPIRIT, I can not give you the evidence that GOD's word is true and accurate. Since a person without this added intervention by GOD cannot come to a knowledge of the truth, the best you will ever do is seek to find reasons not to believe. Should GOD choose to touch you with HIS love and HIS spirit, then you will understand. Yes, I know that experiential evidence is no evidence at all and that many will say it is just emotionalism. Until one experiences, one can only cast doubt on what another knows to be real. Good luck with your research and your search. I pray that your effort is infact an ernest attempt to find GOD and that GOD will bless your effort. HIS peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted August 6, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear kross, Thank you for your response to my comments. Since I can not give you the experience of being indwelt by the HOLY SPIRIT, I can not give you the evidence that GOD's word is true and accurate. Since a person without this added intervention by GOD cannot come to a knowledge of the truth, the best you will ever do is seek to find reasons not to believe. Should GOD choose to touch you with HIS love and HIS spirit, then you will understand. Yes, I know that experiential evidence is no evidence at all and that many will say it is just emotionalism. Until one experiences, one can only cast doubt on what another knows to be real. Good luck with your research and your search. I pray that your effort is infact an ernest attempt to find GOD and that GOD will bless your effort. HIS peace If you cannot give me the experience of being indwelt by the holy spirit, and you cannot provide evidence that such holy spirit exists, what do you expect me to do? You are quite correct that such subjective experiential evidence is no evidence at all, and many will say it is just emotionalism (or something of the equivalent). Afterall, many god-believers of other religions claim the same thing. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? Thank you for your good wishes. I will continue my search for the truth (as it is supported by the evidence). Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted August 6, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear WolfBitn, Thank you for your response. Thank you for your opinions. However, you still have not answered my direct question: Which version is closer to the original? The one with the pericope adulterae or the one without? We know for a fact that: 1) The pericope adulterae is not present in the Alexandrian text types. 2) The pericope adulterae is present in the Western text types. 3) The oldest example (papyri, codexes, etc.) we have of John is Codex Sinaiticus. 4) We do not have examples (papyri, codexes, etc.) of John in Western text type dated older than Codex Sinaiticus. Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted August 6, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted August 6, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear kross, Thank you for your response to my comments. Since I can not give you the experience of being indwelt by the HOLY SPIRIT, I can not give you the evidence that GOD's word is true and accurate. Since a person without this added intervention by GOD cannot come to a knowledge of the truth, the best you will ever do is seek to find reasons not to believe. Should GOD choose to touch you with HIS love and HIS spirit, then you will understand. Yes, I know that experiential evidence is no evidence at all and that many will say it is just emotionalism. Until one experiences, one can only cast doubt on what another knows to be real. Good luck with your research and your search. I pray that your effort is infact an ernest attempt to find GOD and that GOD will bless your effort. HIS peace If you cannot give me the experience of being indwelt by the holy spirit, and you cannot provide evidence that such holy spirit exists, what do you expect me to do? You are quite correct that such subjective experiential evidence is no evidence at all, and many will say it is just emotionalism (or something of the equivalent). Afterall, many god-believers of other religions claim the same thing. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? Thank you for your good wishes. I will continue my search for the truth (as it is supported by the evidence). Regards, UF UF, Interesting thought What if GOD Himself put this truth and evidence in stone? What if He Himself leaves written record AND material evidence to prove His claims? Would you be willing to hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted August 6, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear WolfBitn, Thank you for your response to my comments to kross. UF, Interesting thought What if GOD Himself put this truth and evidence in stone? What if He Himself leaves written record AND material evidence to prove His claims? Would you be willing to hear that? If you can show me that the stone was a product of your god, and not some human stone carver, you may have something there. If you can show me that this written record was indeed written by your god, and not some humans spinning some stories together they have heard rehashed from their ancestors or others, you may have something there. If you can show me that this alleged material evidence (to prove his claims) can be interpreted in no other way, you may have something there. However, if they are just vague prophecies, or prophecies written down after the fact (I can always tell you the winning lottery numbers after they have been drawn), they are meaningless. Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 24 2009, 06:54 PM) Even if there are not, that still does not make the Bible's claims untrue. Nor does it make the bible's claim true.Well see, there's your problem. If the evidence does not disprove the Bible's claims, they stand true by default. Kind of like in US courts of law. If a man cannot be proven guilty, he is innocent by default. QUOTE For one thing, that shows a great lack of understanding of Jewish culture, particularly as it relates to how dead bodies were handled. My understanding or lack of understanding of jewish culture has nothing to do with the true statement that failure to produce a corpse is not evidence for resurrection. Is failure to produce Lao Tzu's corpse evidence that he dematerialized from this world and joined the Tao? I think not. You cannot write off a culture, particularly the culture the Bible was born out of. Nor can you compare Jesus with Lao Tzu. For one thing, everyone KNEW where Jesus was buried and they even sealed up the tomb to prevent the grave from being robbed. If they wanted to silence the apostles and their assertion that Jesus was resurrrected, all they needed to do was go to the grave, open it up and bring out the corpse for all to see. Jesus had only been dead a number of days, so that was still possible. QUOTE It is evidence that the apostles are not lying or making up a story particularly when holding to the story is more dangerous and life-threatening than just caving in and claiming they made the whole thing up. Sorry, your assertion that it is evidence does not make it so. Joe Smith wrote down stories that is now part of the BoM. Clearly it was dangerous to do so in the environment he was living in. Does it make his stories true? I think not. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Again,you are making ridiculous comparisons. The apostles faced far and away more persecution than did Joseph Smith. Besides, most of Joseph Smith's problems came from his own followers. He was assassinated by Mormons. So you cannot compare what he wen through vs. what the Apostle's had to suffer by genuine enemies from outside their movement. You are also avoiding the obvious problem with discrediting the apostles. No one dies for a lie they made up. No one suffers for story they know is not true. The assertion the Apostles made was the Jesus was in fact, resurrected and that they were witnesse to the risen Christ. They dont leave any wiggle room for interpretation and their claim is unambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted August 6, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted August 6, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear WolfBitn, Thank you for your response to my comments to kross. UF, Interesting thought What if GOD Himself put this truth and evidence in stone? What if He Himself leaves written record AND material evidence to prove His claims? Would you be willing to hear that? If you can show me that the stone was a product of your god, and not some human stone carver, you may have something there. If you can show me that this written record was indeed written by your god, and not some humans spinning some stories together they have heard rehashed from their ancestors or others, you may have something there. If you can show me that this alleged material evidence (to prove his claims) can be interpreted in no other way, you may have something there. However, if they are just vague prophecies, or prophecies written down after the fact (I can always tell you the winning lottery numbers after they have been drawn), they are meaningless. Regards, UF well even a human boss has other humans transcribe for him... you give me this and ill give you everything else you ask for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted August 6, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them Dear shiloh357, Thank you for your response. QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 24 2009, 06:54 PM) Even if there are not, that still does not make the Bible's claims untrue. Nor does it make the bible's claim true.Well see, there's your problem. If the evidence does not disprove the Bible's claims, they stand true by default. Kind of like in US courts of law. If a man cannot be proven guilty, he is innocent by default. You are mistaken in comparing a person's default position of innocence until proven guilty with the truth. We do not believe what some book claims is true until it is proven to be true. The default position on belief is non-belief until the claims have been proven true. Example: The Quran claims that Muhammed is the last prophet sent by god. It is written in that book. Is the default position belief that this is true? I think not. However, you should feel free to correct me on this, and tell me that you believe that Muhammed is indeed the last prophet sent by god. You cannot write off a culture, particularly the culture the Bible was born out of. Nor can you compare Jesus with Lao Tzu. For one thing, everyone KNEW where Jesus was buried and they even sealed up the tomb to prevent the grave from being robbed. If they wanted to silence the apostles and their assertion that Jesus was resurrrected, all they needed to do was go to the grave, open it up and bring out the corpse for all to see. Jesus had only been dead a number of days, so that was still possible. Why can't I compare Jesus with Lao Tzu? How do you know that everyone KNEW where Jesus was buried? How do you know that everyone DID NOT KNOW where Lao Tzu was when he dematerialized into the Tao? Again, failure to produce a corpse is not evidence that the dead person resurrected or dematerialized. Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts