Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad · 01-04-2012 11:28pm

ISAW wrote: »

you gave tertiary sources and claimed them as primary.
the ONLY primary source i am aware of for alexander you did produce a single stone tablet of tens of thousands of tablets ONE has the name very like Alexander on it!
how many have Joshua or Jeshu?
No other sources from his timle mention alexander.

eh? 300 years not 400!

i told you why . Alexander is considered the greatest Military general ever and conquered the world. Socrates is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of all times?
either would dwarf the fame or achievements of any roman emperor.

Well Jesus was a workmans son from a small village and the other is an emperor.

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approx. 100 × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. This "Venerated Area" underwent extensive excavation in 1955-65 by the Franciscan priest Belarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology." Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC), pointing to substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when many towns in the area were destroyed by the Assyrians.

Lets be more honest the place wasnt there from 720BC but was before that.

Jerome (c. 347 – 420) linked "Nazarene" to a messianic prophecy by Isaiah, claiming that "Nazarene" was the Hebrew reading of a word modern scholars read as ne·tzer (branch).

There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots.

ve·ya·tza cho·ter mig·ge·za yi·shai ve·ne·tzer mi·sha·ra·shav yif·reh.

http://biblos.com/isaiah/11-1.htm

Isiah by the way is pre christian.

You were saying?

I await your primary sources for socrates and Alexander.

so far yu have one mention on a stone. The only one i am aware of.
Maybe you can double the availmable primary contemporaneous sources for Alexander?
Any offers?

-Socrates 469 BC- 399 BC , so 469 years and more nit picking .

- there are all reputable historical sources and all accepted by the relevant experts, so I will have to defer to their interpretation rather than yours.

- you can't have it both ways ISAW- ask for a comparison with Alexander, the greatest soldier in the world and the greatest philosopher in the world as you say, and then when I ask for a comparision with one of Jesus' contemporaries you invoke the '' was a workmans son from a small village'' card . You are picking and choosing what you think are the best examples to suit your argument.

Need I remind you that as well as being a mere carpenter he was also the son of god , miracle worker and risen from the dead. So a comparison witha mere mortal like Octavian or Virgil should be childs play , so lets have it then.

Al that gumph on Nazereth is meaningless ISAW , no one is disputing that people mayh have been living in that area for centuries brfore that , But the name Nazereth is only used in Christian times .

So I await your comparision with Octavian or Virgil with interest.

marienbad · 01-04-2012 11:31pm

PDN wrote: »

There's no obsession. Just the usual non-Christian posters making unsubstantiated claims and, when pressed to back them up, launching ad hominem attacks instead.

Over the top PDN - there is no ad hominem - please can we all try have a discussion and lets all be not so pedantic. You never know you might even convince and convert me.

HamletOrHecuba · 01-04-2012 11:35pm

marienbad wrote: »

. You never know you might even convince and convert me.

No offense to PDN but no he couldnt convert you. Either could I, nor any human.

And no Im not a Calvinist.

marienbad · 01-04-2012 11:45pm

PDN wrote: »

You think that there should be the same degree of surviving contemporary evidence for a carpenter in Palestine who was executed (even one who made extraordinary claims and worked miracles) as for the Emperor of an Empire that spanned most of the known world?

Are you being serious?

Firstly ISAW is comparing him to Alexander the Great and Socrates , so why not the contemporary emperor ?

Secondly A carpenter in Palestine !! you must be joking ! if that was the extend of your claim we would'nt be having this discussion . As a matter of fact Josephus may even have mentioned that carpenter.

You are claiming than a man performed miracles in front of thousands of witnesses, and not just once . Who claimed he was a God, drove the money lenders from the temple, was executed and resurrected, etc etc all in the space of 3 years. You would expect some mention both pro and con on all of this.

Lets be clear about this, those events would be then and now the greatest most astonishing events that ever happened, and all you can provide is a few mentions in Josephus ?

marienbad · 01-04-2012 11:47pm

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No offense to PDN but no he couldnt convert you. Either could I, nor any human.

And no Im not a Calvinist.

I don't know why you would say that , have more faith

.

Why would I think you are Calvinist ?

tommy2bad · 01-04-2012 11:51pm

No, it's because only God can change hearts.
The Calvin is a ref to predestination.

marienbad · 02-04-2012 12:17am

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Marian you seem to come here regularly to argue, why?

You seem pretty set in your non-Christianity.

This is the second time I have been asked that in recent weeks . Why I wonder ? Are atheists not welcome here ?

I only post in this thread or in those christianity threads such as ''Keep abortion out of Ireland'' which a a direct bearing on the society in which I live.

I never post , to the best of my recollection , in the main Christianity threads or the Protestant Catholic threads as they really have nothing to do with me. I must look them over some time.

In the spirit of full disclosure I also post in the poetry, opera, politics (now and then) and the Rugby threads particularly the Munster one, Though I must say I am never made feel unwelcome in The Leinster Rugby thread as I am from time to time in this one

marienbad · 02-04-2012 12:23am

PDN wrote: »

And where are the contemporary "Letters books .epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery" that refer to this royal personage?

you asked for evidence of events in Palestine in the time of Christ and I am giving it to you.

I am not finished yet, I have started with the contemporaries of Jesus , I will gets to more later though it may be a day or so, duty does sometimes intrude.

ISAW · 02-04-2012 12:37am

marienbad wrote: »

-Socrates 469 BC- 399 BC , so 469 years and more nit picking .

But you said you were leaving Socrates for later!
You were addressing Alexander d. ca 323BC
Jesus borh ca. 8BC

315 years not 469!

- there are all reputable historical sources and all accepted by the relevant experts, so I will have to defer to their interpretation rather than yours.

you seem to know little of scholarship of ancient history.
the experts accept secondary and tertairy sources.
You hawever claimed they were contemporary to Socrates/Alexander.

- you can't have it both ways ISAW- ask for a comparison with Alexander, the greatest soldier in the world and the greatest philosopher in the world as you say, and then when I ask for a comparision with one of Jesus' contemporaries you invoke the '' was a workmans son from a small village'' card . You are picking and choosing what you think are the best examples to suit your argument.

Quite the opposite . Im saying the workmans son from a small village in a remote Provence seems to have more historical evidence than the warrior King of the entire World. You are the one going on abouyt the gospels not being contemporary enought . Im just applying your standard to Socrates or Alexander.

Need I remind you that as well as being a mere carpenter he was also the son of god

As was Alexander apparently. but that isnt a question of historicity. That is one of faith.

, miracle worker and risen from the dead. So a comparison witha mere mortal like Octavian or Virgil should be childs play , so lets have it then.

And a comparison with another "god" shoudl also be easy. Im not claiming "no evidence for Jesus" Im the one pointing out the same argument isnt made for oterh famous people.

I note you picked Virgil out of the air. You are aware Virgil is reputed to have been one of the most prolific writers of the ancient world whereas Jesus is only recorded as having written once? But of "loading the sample" there.

Al that gumph on Nazereth is meaningless ISAW , no one is disputing that people mayh have been living in that area for centuries brfore that , But the name Nazereth is only used in Christian times .

i just showed you

wə·nê·ṣer -branch

NEZER ? Ringing any bells yet?
Original Word: נֵ֫צֶר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: netser
Phonetic Spelling: (nay'-tser)
Short Definition: branch

Daniel 11:7

Those books refer to the Messiah . Isiah is a Messianic prophesy!

HamletOrHecuba · 02-04-2012 1:24am

marienbad wrote: »

This is the second time I have been asked that in recent weeks . Why I wonder ? Are atheists not welcome here ?

I only post in this thread or in those christianity threads such as ''Keep abortion out of Ireland'' which a a direct bearing on the society in which I live.

That question could equally be aimed at Philologos and other Christians; why bother debating atheists?

I wish the abortion thread also did not exist.

Whether Christians have to accept Young Earth creationism, the nature of Original Sin and the Sacraments are what we really should be focusing on.

ISAW · 02-04-2012 1:55am

marienbad wrote: »

Firstly ISAW is comparing him to Alexander the Great and Socrates , so why not the contemporary emperor ?

You have been told why.
If you apply standards to Jesus then you have to apply the same standard to ANYONE from antiquity!

But Alexander was the greatest king of the ancient world and Socrates the greatest teacher of his time. so why not compare them?

Secondly A carpenter in Palestine !! you must be joking ! if that was the extend of your claim we would'nt be having this discussion . As a matter of fact Josephus may even have mentioned that carpenter.

So your actual motivations become apparent. It isnt about historicity at all! Just that you happen to attach special significance to the historicity of Jesus and not apply the same standards to others? I wonder why?

You are claiming than a man performed miracles in front of thousands of witnesses, and not just once . Who claimed he was a God, drove the money lenders from the temple, was executed and resurrected, etc etc all in the space of 3 years. You would expect some mention both pro and con on all of this.

Alexander claimed he was god and apparently conquered Darius in three years. and he was 21 at the time! But you haven't a single contemporaneous document on it!

Lets be clear about this, those events would be then and now the greatest most astonishing events that ever happened, and all you can provide is a few mentions in Josephus ?

All you can provide is a single similar word on a stone tablet of tens of thousands of tablets.

Doc Farrell · 02-04-2012 2:07am

Papyrus is a hell of thing. But anyone can see some right here in Dublin.

http://www.cbl.ie/Collections/The-Western-Collection/Papyri/Biblical.aspx

PDN · 02-04-2012 3:20am

marienbad wrote: »

you asked for evidence of events in Palestine in the time of Christ and I am giving it to you.

I am not finished yet, I have started with the contemporaries of Jesus , I will gets to more later though it may be a day or so, duty does sometimes intrude.

Not true, I asked you for examples of contemporary evidence for people in First Century Palestine - the same kind of contemporary evidence that you claimed we should expect for Jesus.

Secondly A carpenter in Palestine !! you must be joking ! if that was the extend of your claim we would'nt be having this discussion .

Now, now. Have you forgotten what we were discussing? We were talking about contemporary evidence left behind by those who were not His followers - and to them He would simply be a jumped up Carpenter who made extraordinary claims, worked miracles and got executed.

If you want evidence from those who saw Him as being much more than a carpenter, then there's loads of it - much more than for any comparable figure in history: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

But, since you're trying to make a comparison with Octavian, how about this. Since you're (rather arbitrarily) discounting all the many books etc that were written by followers of Jesus, then you should also discount all the evidence that was written by those who acknowledged Octavian as Emperor. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

philologos · 02-04-2012 7:02am

marienbad wrote: »

I don't know why you would say that , have more faith .

Why would I think you are Calvinist ?

The only one who saves anyone is Jesus. The word of God might be presented time and time to an individual, but it is He who will give rise to the opportunity whereby you grow towards accepting the truth that is in those words.

philologos · 02-04-2012 7:35am

marienbad wrote: »

Lets be honest here there is even no mention of Nazereth before Christian times.

Archaeologists in 2009 in the Nazareth area found a first century ruin.

It seems like nothing is enough for you marienbad, because you don't want to accept the Gospel. It's not an intellectual issue at all I don't think.

marienbad · 02-04-2012 10:22am

ISAW wrote: »

You have been told why.
If you apply standards to Jesus then you have to apply the same standard to ANYONE from antiquity!

But Alexander was the greatest king of the ancient world and Socrates the greatest teacher of his time. so why not compare them?

So your actual motivations become apparent. It isnt about historicity at all! Just that you happen to attach special significance to the historicity of Jesus and not apply the same standards to others? I wonder why?

Alexander claimed he was god and apparently conquered Darius in three years. and he was 21 at the time! But you haven't a single contemporaneous document on it!

All you can provide is a single similar word on a stone tablet of tens of thousands of tablets.

I have provided alot more that that on Alexander ISAW and if you can't see it that that is your problem. It is fully acceptable to Historians so , so you will have to come up with something else there, As I say you are not the judge and jury on it.

First you wanted sources and now that they have beeen provided them you want to start interpreting them. Unless you have some qualification in those matters that we don't know about I will stick with the experts I already know .

ON Socrates, who cares , a minimumum of 4 people mention him so it is possible he did not exist but is philosophy does and thats the important thing.

I am holding jesus to the exact same standards and there nothing special about it at all.

Now how about that comparision between Octavian and Jesus or Virgil and Jesus ? is it coming anytime soon ?

marienbad · 02-04-2012 10:36am

philologos wrote: »

Archaeologists in 2009 in the Nazareth area found a first century ruin.

It seems like nothing is enough for you marienbad, because you don't want to accept the Gospel. It's not an intellectual issue at all I don't think.

Please philogos , outside of the Bible what have you presented ? those few references in Josephus , the most important of which is regarded by all and sundry as having been tampered with.

And all they show is a Jesus the man existed - do you claim thay say more ?

I know about the excavation in the Nazareth area , as i have already said , there have always been people living there. It is the name the comes to be known in Christian times and not before that is significant.
Nothing has been found in those excavations that one would'nt expect to find,

marienbad · 02-04-2012 10:42am

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Did anyone doubt Jesus's existence in antiquity?

I havent come across any claim, and Im sure if it existed we would have heard no end of it.

Does that not count as proof?

Depends on what you mean by antiquity, but in general not if they never heard of him , no . But if he did live and do all that he is said to have done one would expect there would be many accounts from a diversity of sources and a mixture of pro and con. There is'nt.

Morbert · 02-04-2012 12:09pm

It is good to see that people are finally talking about evidence for God, which is the only thing important in a debate about the existence of God.

I would like to know what Christians think about the Wikipedia article on the historical reliablility of the Gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Do Christians believe the historical components of the Bible are inerrant?

PDN · 02-04-2012 12:56pm

marienbad wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by antiquity, but in general not if they never heard of him , no . But if he did live and do all that he is said to have done one would expect there would be many accounts from a diversity of sources and a mixture of pro and con. There is'nt.

Marien, I'm afriad you've previous form on this kind of thing.

1. You make unsubstantiated statements.
2. Then when pressed to substantiate them you refuse to do so.
3. Then you fly off at tangents and get personal
4. Then you repeat the unsubstantiated statements as if nothing had happened in the meantime to undermine your credibility.

So let's hold your feet to the fire on this. We already have far more evidence of Jesus than we do of any other person in his historical and geographical setting. You're ignoring the wealth of material we have on Jesus because it was written by His followers. But you are repeating your claim that we should expect a whole load of other surviving contemporary evidence from First Century Palestine.

Such an expectation would only be reasonable or justified if non-Christian contemporary evidence from Palestine on other people had a habit of surviving over 2000 thousand years. Therefore I quite reasonably asked you for examples of such evidence.

Your response:
1. You said, "Why should I be expected to?"
2. You accused Christians of being obsessed with proving Jesus was historical.
3. You turned that into an accusation that the Christians who respond to your claims lack faith.
4. You provided a wikipedia link to Herod the Great - even though the only contemporary evidence I can see in the wiki link is some coins. Coins were issued for kings and rulers - not carpenters, messiahs or miracle workers.
5. You cited a non-contemporary reference in Josephus to Salome. (for some reason that escapes me you accept Josephus as genuine if he refers to Salome but Josephus is dodgy if he mentions Jesus).

I think it would lessen the frustration on the forum if, rather than repeating your assertion again, you actually justified why we should expect such evidence to have survived.

Don't start attacking others.

Don't start suggesting we move the discussion to another Forum.

Just show us you're interested in genuine discussion by being prepared to back up your assertions. Tell us about all the contemporary evidence of other First Century personages that museums are apparently chock-full of.

If you aren't prepared to do that, then I think it would be more honest of you not to repeat your claim that we should expect all this evidence about Jesus (in addition, that is, to all the stacks of evidence we allready have from His followers).

marienbad · 02-04-2012 3:06pm

PDN wrote: »

Marien, I'm afriad you've previous form on this kind of thing.

1. You make unsubstantiated statements.
2. Then when pressed to substantiate them you refuse to do so.
3. Then you fly off at tangents and get personal
4. Then you repeat the unsubstantiated statements as if nothing had happened in the meantime to undermine your credibility.

So let's hold your feet to the fire on this. We already have far more evidence of Jesus than we do of any other person in his historical and geographical setting. You're ignoring the wealth of material we have on Jesus because it was written by His followers. But you are repeating your claim that we should expect a whole load of other surviving contemporary evidence from First Century Palestine.

Such an expectation would only be reasonable or justified if non-Christian contemporary evidence from Palestine on other people had a habit of surviving over 2000 thousand years. Therefore I quite reasonably asked you for examples of such evidence.

Your response:
1. You said, "Why should I be expected to?"
2. You accused Christians of being obsessed with proving Jesus was historical.
3. You turned that into an accusation that the Christians who respond to your claims lack faith.
4. You provided a wikipedia link to Herod the Great - even though the only contemporary evidence I can see in the wiki link is some coins. Coins were issued for kings and rulers - not carpenters, messiahs or miracle workers.
5. You cited a non-contemporary reference in Josephus to Salome. (for some reason that escapes me you accept Josephus as genuine if he refers to Salome but Josephus is dodgy if he mentions Jesus).

I think it would lessen the frustration on the forum if, rather than repeating your assertion again, you actually justified why we should expect such evidence to have survived.

Don't start attacking others.

Don't start suggesting we move the discussion to another Forum.

Just show us you're interested in genuine discussion by being prepared to back up your assertions. Tell us about all the contemporary evidence of other First Century personages that museums are apparently chock-full of.

If you aren't prepared to do that, then I think it would be more honest of you not to repeat your claim that we should expect all this evidence about Jesus (in addition, that is, to all the stacks of evidence we allready have from His followers).

PDN this your own tactics you are describing ,

- I have answered all question put to me, ( if there are any I have missed then give me the post no. and I will answer as best I can)
- what claims have i refused to substantiate ? as I say if I have missed any let me know and I will do so now.
- I have not gone on any tangents - can you demonstrate please.
- I do not get personel - possibly you are just too sensitive ? ( by the way is that getting personal.)
- As i do not make unsubstantiated claims I obviously don't repeat them.
- I don't attack other posters, at least no more or less that the normal robustness on this thread.
-I hav'nt asked to move this to another thread ??? I don't know where you get the notion.
-why would you doubt I am interested in discussion ? That is effect saying I am trolling ? Is so report me and we can take it from there, I am quite happy my contribution will stand up to scrutiny.

Now to the meat and bones of it ,you asked for historical evidence of life in Palestine in the time of jesus- I am giving it to you, and I am not finished. If you would prefer more specific evidence than I am providing let me know and I will see what I can do. I can't be more upfront than that.

Now I await the unanswered statements/ questions/whatever you say I neglected or avoided answering and if there are some I will give you an honest reply.

Similarly I expect you PDN to answer my question on Octavian or Virgil in comparision to jesus, or to state why it is inapproppriate.

It is not enough to say Jesus was a carpenter and then claim he was a God, You can't have it both ways.

Now to the evidence we do have- we have a few mentions by Josephus , the most important by general consent being doubtfull

Can we all agree on that or have I missed something ?

Everything else is some time later and by Jesus' own followers ?

Can we agree on that ?

And please as you demand answers can I expect you to give them ?

Adamas · 02-04-2012 3:20pm

marienbad wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by antiquity, but in general not if they never heard of him , no . But if he did live and do all that he is said to have done one would expect there would be many accounts from a diversity of sources and a mixture of pro and con. There is'nt.

The issue of 'Nazareth' and 'Nazarenes' is a contentious one in the study of early Christianity.
Many rightly and fairly ask why did Paul/Saul deny being a member of the mysterious 'sect of Nazarenes' if Jesus was a Nazarene too? (Acts 24:5) Would that not be denying Jesus himself? The Jews said Paul was a Nazarene, but he denied he was, and as we know, even modern day Muslims and inhabitants of that region refer to what we call 'Christians' as 'Nasrani', the equivalent to the modern English usage of the word 'Nazarenes'.

To describe a whole sect or group by reference to their alleged coming from a small village that was never even mentioned in the hundreds listed in the Old Testament, certainly begs many questions, and the disputes still rage on this even today.

Nazarenes, Nazarites and Way people were around a long time before 'Christianity', which should be more correctly referred to 'Paulianity'. The later manifestations of the newly founded religion that sprang up in the latter half of the first century on the stories of Jesus and his followers, became the dominant power that we still see today in hundreds of different forms.

The original groups who followed Jesus and the ones who came before him were known as 'the followers of The Way', the very people whom Paul/Saul openly admitted to earlier hunting down and even murdering in Acts 22:4 "And I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women." So, why we might ask is, are they saying that this 'sect' just came up out of nowhere, or that this sect was only located in a village that only later became known as Nazareth? Or, what was the original meaning of 'nazarene'? Depending on what version of the bible you choose to read, the importance or relevance of the 'way' or "the Way' makes all the difference to the context.

PDN · 02-04-2012 3:25pm

marienbad wrote: »

PDN this your own tactics you are describing ,

- I have answered all question put to me, ( if there are any I have missed then give me the post no. and I will answer as best I can)
- what claims have i refused to substantiate ? as I say if I have missed any let me know and I will do so now.
- I have not gone on any tangents - can you demonstrate please.
- I do not get personel - possibly you are just too sensitive ? ( by the way is that getting personal.)
- As i do not make unsubstantiated claims I obviously don't repeat them.
- I don't attack other posters, at least no more or less that the normal robustness on this thread.
-I hav'nt asked to move this to another thread ??? I don't know where you get the notion.
-why would you doubt I am interested in discussion ? That is effect saying I am trolling ? Is so report me and we can take it from there, I am quite happy my contribution will stand up to scrutiny.

Now to the meat and bones of it ,you asked for historical evidence of life in Palestine in the time of jesus- I am giving it to you, and I am not finished. If you would prefer more specific evidence than I am providing let me know and I will see what I can do. I can't be more upfront than that.

Now I await the unanswered statements/ questions/whatever you say I neglected or avoided answering and if there are some I will give you an honest reply.

Similarly I expect you PDN to answer my question on Octavian or Virgil in comparision to jesus, or to state why it is inapproppriate.

It is not enough to say Jesus was a carpenter and then claim he was a God, You can't have it both ways.

Now to the evidence we do have- we have a few mentions by Josephus , the most important by general consent being doubtfull

Can we all agree on that or have I missed something ?

Everything else is some time later and by Jesus' own followers ?

Can we agree on that ?

And please as you demand answers can I expect you to give them ?

Waffle - and a lot of it.

Once again, Marien, where is any surviving contemporary evidence of other historical figures in First Century Palestine? If it exists in huge amounts then you should have no difficulty pointing to it. If it doesn't exist in huge amounts then your claim that we should expect such evidence from non-Christian sources about Jesus is exposed as totally unsubstantiated and unreasonable.

Similarly I expect you PDN to answer my question on Octavian or Virgil in comparision to jesus, or to state why it is inapproppriate.

I will gladly discuss those issues with you when you answer my questions. Then I might be convinced that I'm dealing with someone who is engaging in honest discussion rather than simply deflecting from their own indefensible position.

I certainly think that a comparison with Virgil would be very interesting (given that our main source of biographical detail of Virgil comes from Suetonius who lived over a century later, and the earliest manuscript we have that quotes anything by virgil dates over 350 years after his death!

)

tommy2bad · 02-04-2012 3:33pm

Morbert wrote: »

It is good to see that people are finally talking about evidence for God, which is the only thing important in a debate about the existence of God.

I would like to know what Christians think about the Wikipedia article on the historical reliablility of the Gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Do Christians believe the historical components of the Bible are inerrant?

The wiki article is a good one and presents the evidence fairly.
Anyway thats a debate about a person called Jesus and how it impacts on His position as God, I don't know.
No their are not inerrant in the sense of being factual accounts of history. They are inerrant in the sense of telling about the Jews relationship with God.
To answer your question, Christians aren't a monolith. Some believe everything in the bible is fact and anything that contradicts or questions that is false. Others take a more reasonable view and read the bible to learn about life and God not history or science.

Adamas · 02-04-2012 3:36pm

Morbert wrote: »

It is good to see that people are finally talking about evidence for God, which is the only thing important in a debate about the existence of God.

I would like to know what Christians think about the Wikipedia article on the historical reliablility of the Gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Do Christians believe the historical components of the Bible are inerrant?

I think the straight answer to that is that some do and some don't, and many have never thought about, researched or read most of it.
Some treat it as 'fact' while others accept it on 'faith', and some honestly admit to be somewhat confused on what bits are most likely true and not.

The past almost 2000 years has been mostly about one group of Christians arguing and even killing each other over what they each 'believe to to true'. It's more or less the same story in most cultures down the ages, so it's not something applicable solely to Christians, as there is nothing that gets people more aroused than what they emotionally feel is right according to what they want to accept as real. People simply like to imagine that what they imagine to be real, is real, really. Go figure....;)

Morbert · 02-04-2012 3:37pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

The wiki article is a good one and presents the evidence fairly.
Anyway thats a debate about a person called Jesus and how it impacts on His position as God, I don't know.
No their are not inerrant in the sense of being factual accounts of history. They are inerrant in the sense of telling about the Jews relationship with God.
To answer your question, Christians aren't a monolith. Some believe everything in the bible is fact and anything that contradicts or questions that is false. Others take a more reasonable view and read the bible to learn about life and God not history or science.

While I understand many Christians do not interpret all of the Bible literally, do they believe that those parts of the Bible that were intended to be historical (I.e. The Census of Quirinius) are accurate?

tommy2bad · 02-04-2012 3:53pm

Morbert wrote: »

While I understand many Christians do not interpret all of the Bible literally, do they believe that those parts of the Bible that were intended to be historical (I.e. The Census of Quirinius) are accurate?

Well we might read them as being historical the people writing might have seen it as placing the events in a context, one not necessarily historical.
Like any biography written by the promoters they would have been empathizing the importance of their hero rather than his nonprescription.
The Gospels are promotional literature firstly they are as historical accurate as they needed to be to get the message out, not to record events for the Jerusalem Post evening edition.

marienbad · 02-04-2012 5:42pm

PDN wrote: »

Waffle - and a lot of it.

Once again, Marien, where is any surviving contemporary evidence of other historical figures in First Century Palestine? If it exists in huge amounts then you should have no difficulty pointing to it. If it doesn't exist in huge amounts then your claim that we should expect such evidence from non-Christian sources about Jesus is exposed as totally unsubstantiated and unreasonable.

I will gladly discuss those issues with you when you answer my questions. Then I might be convinced that I'm dealing with someone who is engaging in honest discussion rather than simply deflecting from their own indefensible position.

I certainly think that a comparison with Virgil would be very interesting (given that our main source of biographical detail of Virgil comes from Suetonius who lived over a century later, and the earliest manuscript we have that quotes anything by virgil dates over 350 years after his death! )

That OK PDN It seems I answered your waffle with waffle then ( and you accuse me of being personal !)

Are you going to point out those questios I left unanswered and those tangets I raised or is that just waffle also ?

I have already given you sources on Herod and Salome, and I will provide more , In the meantime you might answer some of my questions or is it just a one way street ?

To recap - the only contemporaneous record of Jesus is those mentions by Josephus and one of those is dubious ? Are we agreed on that ?

PDN · 02-04-2012 7:49pm

marienbad wrote: »

Are you going to point out those questios I left unanswered

I have done so - several times now. Indeed it's getting very tiresome to keep repeating the same question and for it consistently to be ignored.

I repeat: Where is any surviving contemporary evidence of other historical figures in First Century Palestine?

I have already given you sources on Herod and Salome

All you appear to be producing for Herod is coins (as we would expect for a king). Now, are you suggesting that we should be finding coins bearing the image of a carpenter from Nazareth?

As for Salome, the only source you can produce is Josephus (the same Josephus whom you refuse to accept as a source of evidence for Jesus). Do you nunderstand why that seems hypocritical.

In fact, as we both know, the primary source of information that historians draw on for biographical details of Salome is (wait for it ... drum roll,..) the New Testament!

To recap - the only contemporaneous record of Jesus is those mentions by Josephus and one of those is dubious ? Are we agreed on that ?

No - we have the Four Gospels and the epistles of Paul. All of which were written by contemporaries of Jesus (since, by citing Josephus in connection with both Salome and Jesus, you appear to be using contemporaneous to refer to people who were alive at the same time as the people of whom they wrote).

PDN · 02-04-2012 8:07pm

Morbert wrote: »

While I understand many Christians do not interpret all of the Bible literally, do they believe that those parts of the Bible that were intended to be historical (I.e. The Census of Quirinius) are accurate?

I think you may get disappointed at some stage in the discussion when you find that we understand Scriptural inerrancy as meaning something different from each other.

Certainly not all Christians view Scripture as inerrant. I do, btw, but if it turned out I was wrong then it wouldn't unduly upset my Christian faith - so my Christianity is not contingent upon my belief in errancy.

But, yes, I would believe historical narrative, such as the reference to Quirinius is inerrant.

Luke 2:2 reads: αυτη απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κυρηνιου (literally - the census was first taken Quirinius governor of Syria).

This may mean several things:
a) The census was taken when Quirinius was first time the governor of Syria (implying that he served two different terms in that office).
b) This first census was the first one - before the one that Quirinius governor of Syria took.
c) This census was first taken when Quirinius was governer of Syria.

(a) & (b) would not be problematic for the notion of inerrancy - but (c) would be (unless Quirinius was appointed as some kind of military legate or co-Governer).

Another possibility, suggested many centuries ago by Tertullian, is that Quirinius is an early copyist's error and should read 'Saturninus'. This would be compatible with the notion of inerrancy which declares that the original manuscripts (not necessarily subsequent copies) were inerrant.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments