Some looper claiming to be God?

Fishyfreak · 10-02-2008 11:01am #1

Ok, was Jesus some lunatic or what that brainwashed a load of blokes into beleiving he was "God" or "The son of God"?

He was more than likely a "Magician" who used tricks to show that he was performing miracles. If Derren Brown told us he was "The son of God" how different would that be to believing jesus he was the son of God.

Organised religion is the reason why we have wars and murder all over the world.

I am an intelligent person and refuse to believe that "God" created this and created that.

Oh, and another thin, Do Christians believe in the fact that we evolved from primitave animals. Or is evolution wrong.

PDN · 10-02-2008 11:08am

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Organised religion is the reason why we have wars and murder all over the world.

I am an intelligent person and refuse to believe that "God" created this and created that.

The first sentence, which ignores all the wars and murder that are unconnected with religion, makes a bit of a mockery of the second sentence, where you claim to be intelligent.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead then He was probably a conman or a nutter. If He was raised from the dead, as Christians believe, then He is the Son of God.

Most professing Christians believe that mankind evolved from other life forms, but a sizeable minority do not believe so.

Hivemind187 · 10-02-2008 11:12am

PDN wrote: »

If Jesus did not rise from the dead then He was probably a conman or a nutter. If He was raised from the dead, as Christians believe, then He might be the Son of God.

Fixed

PDN · 10-02-2008 11:15am

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Fixed

Ah well, I will take it as a sign of progress that you are now thinking about the possibility.

Fishyfreak · 10-02-2008 11:48am

PDN wrote: »

The first sentence, which ignores all the wars and murder that are unconnected with religion, makes a bit of a mockery of the second sentence, where you claim to be intelligent.

If you read the sentence properly you would notice that I didn't blame religion for all of the wars/murders in the world. It is responsible for many.

Ok, so you've cleared up one thing for me, it is only a minority that deny evolution. I believed it was a fundamental part of Christianity.

philologos · 10-02-2008 12:45pm

Fishyfreak wrote: »

I am an intelligent person and refuse to believe that "God" created this and created that.

You can refuse all you like, it doesn't make it any more or less true as far as I'm concerned.

Bear in mind all Christians think that God created the world, it's the method that is up for discussion.

Pompey Magnus · 10-02-2008 12:53pm

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Ok, so you've cleared up one thing for me, it is only a minority that deny evolution. I believed it was a fundamental part of Christianity.

Well, to be honest I wouldn't go that far. I see there as being two seperate theories of evolution, the Christian theory of evolution and the Scientific theory of evolution.

The Scienctific theory promotes random mutations of genes spanning billions of years which had no end product in mind, just whatever worked prospered.

In the Christian theory of evolution this randomness must be taken out of the equation because they believe that evolution had an end product in mind, that is to say that when life began on Earth four billion years ago an infintely strict step by step by step development spanning every single generation since the first replicating prokaryotes developed in the oceans of early Earth had to take place in order for a particular branch of African Apes to emerge and become self aware, had conditions changed ever so slightly during any period of this 4 billion year process God's plan would have fallen apart and humanity would never have evolved.

Christian evolution is guided and non-random. It is a compromise between science and the Bible, the evidence for evolution was too strong for Christianity to ignore but was also incompatable with their anthropocentric view of the Universe so they settled with a watered down version of evolution.

Zombrex · 10-02-2008 1:06pm

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Ok, was Jesus some lunatic or what that brainwashed a load of blokes into beleiving he was "God" or "The son of God"?

Given you are in the Christian forum I'm not quite sure what response you expect to this question.

Are you expecting a lot of "Why yes, yes he was" answers?

Hivemind187 · 10-02-2008 1:13pm

It does of course bring up the argument that Christ (if he did exist) may have just been lucky enough to be the nutter everyone remembers.

At that particular period and in that particular part of the world there were a lot of small cults, so-called messiahs, splinter groups, extremists and nutters that people thought were divine. It may be that Jesus (if he did exist) may have been in the right place, surrounded by the right people, at the right time to be remembered for being a spiritual figure.

While it requires the assumption of these factors coming together at anyone time it is not unheard of and is evidenced by other powerful and charismatic people being able to do the same thing - Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot etc

It also requires fewer assumptions of the improbable such as the suspension of the normal processes of physics and reality (rising from the dead, immaculate conception, transmutation of one substance into another, spontaneous generation of enough fish-paste sandwiches to feed a lot of people).

Unless one assumes that the laws of nature and physical reality were different in the middle east 2000 years ago.

wolfsbane · 10-02-2008 7:09pm

Depeche_Mode said:

Christian evolution is guided and non-random. It is a compromise between science and the Bible, the evidence for evolution was too strong for Christianity to ignore but was also incompatable with their anthropocentric view of the Universe so they settled with a watered down version of evolution.

That's a good definition of Christian evolution.

But I must point out to our friend that it is not the historic position of Christianity, nor can it be reconciled with the Bible. It is indeed, a compromise between science and the Bible.

wolfsbane · 10-02-2008 7:47pm

Hivemind187 said:

While it requires the assumption of these factors coming together at anyone time it is not unheard of and is evidenced by other powerful and charismatic people being able to do the same thing - Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot etc

True. There have been, are and will be many false messiahs. But that does not rule out a true Messiah.

It also requires fewer assumptions of the improbable such as the suspension of the normal processes of physics and reality (rising from the dead, immaculate conception, transmutation of one substance into another, spontaneous generation of enough fish-paste sandwiches to feed a lot of people).

Unless one assumes that the laws of nature and physical reality were different in the middle east 2000 years ago.

No, the laws remain the same. The exceptions to them are another matter. IF a spiritual world exists, a world that is superior to the material one, then such exceptions could be expected.

The Bible declares such a world, and gives instances of some of the exceptions. Countless individuals down the ages testify to experiencing something of the spiritual world. Are they all mistaken? Logic says possibly... but it is your position that seems to me to be improbable one.

Pompey Magnus · 10-02-2008 8:50pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I must point out to our friend that it is not the historic position of Christianity, nor can it be reconciled with the Bible. [/I].

I completely agree. Evolution, to my mind, cannot be reconciled with the Bible or vice versa. The idea of a guided process of natural selection is ridiculous and raises more questions than it answers.

Fanny Cradock · 10-02-2008 11:18pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I completely agree. Evolution, to my mind, cannot be reconciled with the Bible or vice versa. The idea of a guided process of natural selection is ridiculous and raises more questions than it answers.

Well you are just going to have to convince the majority of Christians that they are wrong in their interpretation.

Unlike wolfsbane, I find your insistence that a 'Christian evolution' is separate from a 'scientific evolution' to be without foundation. Consider that fact that many Christians who are scientists do not see this conflict between their field and evolutionary theory either.

If one is of the opinion that Genesis is not talking about the physical image of God, rather a spiritual one, there is no reason to believe that 'mankind' had to evolve in any particular form in order to adhere to God's spiritual image.

It's just a minor point, but I would argue that the 'scientific evolution' you mention (along with it's processes) isn't as entirely random as you would otherwise suggest. The results arising from natural selection are not simply random in the same way that genetic mutation appears to be. On the contrary, it appears to be ordered. By this I mean that organisms undergoing deleterious mutations are less likely to flourish and more likely die out than those undergoing beneficial mutations, which would likely gain a competitive advantage over the former. I would also mention that environment is a determining factor in the evolution of a species. Species that can best adapt to their environment will gain advantage over those that can't. Again, this would suggest that evolution isn't an entirely random process.

Pompey Magnus · 10-02-2008 11:56pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Consider that fact that many Christians who are scientists do not see this conflict between their field and evolutionary theory either.

Could I flip this question around and throw it back to you? How about you consider the vast majority of all scientists (not just the minority Christian set which you picked out) who do see a conflict and feel that religion and science are not compatable.

If one is of the opinion that Genesis is not talking about the physical image of God, rather a spiritual one, there is no reason to believe that 'mankind' had to evolve in any particular form in order to adhere to God's spiritual image.

Well you are just going to have to convince the majority of Christians that they are wrong in their interpretation. Most Christians interpret: "the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26) as referring to the physical body and use this to claim sanctity of the human body. I don't know of too many Christians who would claim that the human form was not divinely sculpted.

It's just a minor point, but I would argue that the 'scientific evolution' you mention (along with it's processes) isn't as entirely random as you would otherwise suggest. The results arising from natural selection are not simply random in the same way that genetic mutation appears to be. On the contrary, it appears to be ordered. By this I mean that organisms undergoing deleterious mutations are less likely to flourish and more likely die out, whereas organisms that undergo beneficial mutations will gain a competitive advantage over the former. I would also mention that environment is a determining factor in the evolution of a species. Again, this would suggest that evolution isn't an entirely random process. This is because species that can best adapt to their environment will gain advantage over those that can't.

You are absolutely correct that natural selection is not random, of course I never suggested such a thing and I don't see how what you so accurately point out here in any way contradicts what I said.

I explained that the mutations which developed were random, ever so slight inaccuracies arising during the genetic replication process. Of course the success of a certain mutations is not random, rather it depends on how beneficial it is to carrier of the mutation. But this is in no way guided and the chances for any particular species (including humans) to develop by random chance are unimaginably small.

Húrin · 11-02-2008 12:03am

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Ok, was Jesus some lunatic or what that brainwashed a load of blokes into beleiving he was "God" or "The son of God"?

He was more than likely a "Magician" who used tricks to show that he was performing miracles. If Derren Brown told us he was "The son of God" how different would that be to believing jesus he was the son of God.

Organised religion is the reason why we have wars and murder all over the world.

I am an intelligent person and refuse to believe that "God" created this and created that.

Oh, and another thin, Do Christians believe in the fact that we evolved from primitave animals. Or is evolution wrong.

troll

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2008 12:14am

Húrin wrote: »

troll

How is his claim to know that evolution is fact a troll when a Christians claim to "know" God created the Universe not? Where is the difference? Whilst I don't believe it is correct to call evolution a fact, it is just as reasonable as a Christian claim to knowledge of God, and probably moreso.

Fanny Cradock · 11-02-2008 12:27am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Could I flip this question around and through it back to you. How about you consider the vast majority of all scientists (not just the minority Christian set which you picked out) who do see a conflict and feel that religion and science are not compatable.

Where do you get the 'vast majority' bit?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well you are just going to have to convince the majority of Christians that they are wrong in their interpretation. Most Christians interpret: "Then the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26) as referring to the physical body and use this to claim sanctity of the human body. I don't know of too many Christians who would claim that the human form was not divinely sculpted.

Again, I'm not sure where you get the 'majority' bit from. My experience would show the opposite. However, I would be willing to listen to their perspectives on the issue. Personally, I see no reason for God, a spiritual being, to be bound by the evolutionary processes that lead to our present physical state. I don't believe that God has toenails or nipples.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You are absolutely correct that natural selection is not random, of course I never suggested such a thing and I don't see how what you so accurately point out here in any way contradicts what I said.

I explained that the mutations which developed were random, ever so slight inaccuracies arising during the genetic replication process. Of course the success of a certain mutations is not random, rather it depends on how beneficial it is to carrier of the mutation. But this is in no way guided and the chances for any particular species (including humans) to develop by random chance are unimaginably small.

We agree then!

I felt the need to point out the obvious because of your assertion that 'Christian evolution' was a process guided, and therefore ridiculous. To counter this I thought I should point out that our current understanding of evolution (which I maintain is one in the same for many Christians as it is for non-Christians) does not allow for an entirely random process; at times its direction determined by non-random factors.

Húrin · 11-02-2008 12:29am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How is his claim to know that evolution is fact a troll when a Christians claim to "know" God created the Universe not? Where is the difference? Whilst I don't believe it is correct to call evolution a fact, it is just as reasonable as a Christian claim to knowledge of God, and probably moreso.

his questions are valid. His way of asking them was not.

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2008 1:12am

Húrin wrote: »

his questions are valid. His way of asking them was not.

I see now, when I saw where you quoted his post the word fact was in bold and underlined, I assumed you did this as this was the part of the post you disagreed with, but I see now that it was like that in the original post. My mistake.

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2008 2:08am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Where do you get the 'vast majority' bit?

Plenty of surveys among scientists show much more disbelief in God than belief. The first one I found on the net was carried out by Nature in 1998 among members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) which showed a 7% belief in a personal God and 93% disbelief or agnosticism.

The researchers ended their paper by stating:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

Link

Again, I'm not sure where you get the 'majority' bit from. My experience would show the opposite. However, I would be willing to listen to their perspectives on the issue. Personally, I see no reason for God, a spiritual being, to be bound by the evolutionary processes that lead to our present physical state. I don't believe that God has toenails or nipples.

I'm willing to conceed this point, when I still believed I would have held a pretty similar viewpoint

.

I felt the need to point out the obvious because of your assertion that 'Christian evolution' was a process guided, and therefore ridiculous. To counter this I thought I should point out that our current understanding of evolution (which I maintain is one in the same for many Christians as it is for non-Christians) does not allow for an entirely random process; at times its direction determined by non-random factors.

This is all well and good if you don't believe that God had no final product (humanity) in mind when he created the universe but I can't see how this fits with Christianity.

When life started on Earth there arose an almost infinite set of possible species which plausably could have evolved given the right curcumstances, humans were just one of these species and as it happened the right mutations happened and the right environmental conditions occured at the right times and here we are. If a Christian was to claim that humanity was part of God's plan then they cannot but claim for a strictly guided process (a particular genetic mutation in a particular individual of a particular species, this mutated gene successfully reproducing itself, asteroids hitting Earth at the right time etc etc etc).

I remember reading an experiment Richard Dawkins carried out (it might have been in Unweaving the Rainbow, I'm not sure) where he created a computer simulation for the evolution of species, his "species" in this instance being complex mathematical shapes but going along the same basic principles of evolution. Altering one small mutation in an early individual let to a rapid domino effect through its descendents and the outcomes of the different evolutionary paths were completely different.

My original point was that the evolution of humanity, without guidance, was extremely low. That we did eventually emerge was just sheer chance. To claim that humans were part of God's plan requires God's intervention in mutating certain genes at certain times as well as intervening in environmental factors and at numerous other levels and stages in the process.

seamus · 11-02-2008 11:01am

Organised religion is the reason why we have wars and murder all over the world.

Gross oversimplification. I would say that if we take the reason for war at its core, you'll find that religion has rarely been the actual reason for a war, rather it's been used as a vessel with which to gather support for a war. The religious right-wing has gathered huge support in the US in recent years purely because it has managed to paint Islam as an evil religion which can only be combatted with Christian righteousness. You think they actually care about religious righteousness or do they just want to be in control?

I am an intelligent person and refuse to believe that "God" created this and created that.

Oh, and another thin, Do Christians believe in the fact that we evolved from primitave animals. Or is evolution wrong.

I love the irony in these two statements. You're saying that because you're intelligent you "refuse to believe" in a God, without backing up your assertions, in much the same way that hardcore religious zealots "refuse to believe" in evolution without providing good evidence for their assertions.

Soul Winner · 11-02-2008 12:10pm

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Ok, was Jesus some lunatic or what that brainwashed a load of blokes into believing he was "God" or "The son of God"?

He was either that or an honest megalomaniac who believed the impossible about Himself. The world for the most part puts Him in the category of a good and wise man. The source they invariably use for this stance is the Gospels, which said source also has Him making claims about Himself that no mortal man has a right to make. So if He's good and His claims are not true then He can't be wise because He should know better or if He's wise then He knows His claims are not true thus He is lying which means He is not good. If He is the traditionally and universally recognise good and wise man that most of the world including the academic world say it’s ok to believe He is then He has to be supernatural because the same source that makes people call Him good and wise also has Him making these ridiculous claims about Himself. What needs to be studied is the resurrection. If He came out of that tomb as reported and ascended as reported then He was who He claimed to be before His death. How valid are those reporters though? Well just simply read their story. Do they sound like liars to you? Show me where you think they are lying about any aspect of their report. If you're not bothered to read them then don't ask questions that you really don't want the answers to.

Fishyfreak wrote: »

He was more than likely a "Magician" who used tricks to show that he was performing miracles. If Derren Brown told us he was "The son of God" how different would that be to believing Jesus he was the son of God.

Well if Darren Brown made the claims Jesus made about Himself including that He would die and rise again on the third day and I was witness to these events then I would take another look at what He said before he died. That's what sets Jesus apart. Not only did He rise form the grave but that it was the one who made the amazing claims He made that rose. If He rose from the grave as a fact of history then that would give validity to His other claims wouldn’t it? If He didn't actually rise then He was a nobody, but like I said read the record, it all boils down to whether or not the disciples who reported the event are lying or not. Tell me why you believe the witnesses are lying about it and I'll tell why I believe they are not.

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Organised religion is the reason why we have wars and murder all over the world.

Is it now? I suppose it was religious people who invented all the weapons we've used in war as well? Up to and including nuclear weapons, are they a religious invention or did scientist invent them? I am not against science but as the Americans put it "give me a break man".

Fishyfreak wrote: »

I am an intelligent person and refuse to believe that "God" created this and created that.

You are absolutely entitled to believe what you want to believe. There are millions of intelligent people worldwide just like you who hold the same position. Does that mean that God actually didn't create this and that? Does the fact that intelligent people like me for instance who believe God did create everything mean that He actually did?

Fishyfreak wrote: »

Oh, and another thin, Do Christians believe in the fact that we evolved from primitive animals. Or is evolution wrong.

When descibing the creation of mankind the book of Genesis reads that God created Adam (Aw-dam in the Hebrew) it doesn't say He created man (Ishi in Hebrew mankind in general). So from the Bible's point of view you can have as many man like creatures running around all you like. God created Aw-dam and breath into Aw-dam and Aw-dam became a living soul. Can you fossilise a soul? The book of Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 starts out by stating that "In the beginning Gods (Elohim plural for God which is El in Hebrew) created the heavens and the earth" Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 reads literally from the Hebrew "And the earth became a waste and a desolation." Who knows how much time elapsed between these two verses? The earth wasn't created a waste and a desolation, it became one. What happened to cause this? No one really knows but Satan being cast down to earth before Adam was created might have had something to do with it. He was in the garden to temp them after all, but that's just speculation, the point is that there could have been a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The reason we have the theory of a six thousand years old earth is because Bishop Ussher in the 1600s devised a dating method of the earth by using the Adamic genealogy in Genesis and the Gospels and added up the years they all live and protracted this back from the time of Jesus’ birth which we know to be 2000 years or so ago and concluded this age for the earth. Ussher never took into account the original Hebrew. I bet he couldn't even read Hebrew or Greek for that matter. So how can this dating method be accurate? There is no conflict between science and the Bible. Only good scientists who are bad Bible scholars and/or good Bible scholars who are bad scientists will tell you that there is. The Genesis account is a recreation process after it became a waste and a desolation. He tells Adam and Eve to replenish the earth not to plenish it, why would He say that if it was the first time for it to be plenished? Why say replenish?

You’re questions a valid but I don’t believe you really want answers to them in fairness. You’ve only responded once thus far to any other post.

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2008 12:40pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

How valid are those reporters though? Well just simply read their story. Do they sound like liars to you? Show me where you think they are lying about any aspect of their report. If you're not bothered to read them then don't ask questions that you really don't want the answers to.

Firstly it wasn't their story. They were not eye witnesses to the mission of Jesus and so they are only relaying someone elses stories. In your opinion was Mohammed lying when he wrote the Quran? Were the writers of the gnostic Gospels lying when they denied the literal truth of the resurrection? Were the writers of every single other Holy book lying and only the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were honest? Lets face it, with all these different religions and different interpretations are you suggesting that only 4 men in the entire history of human religion creation were telling the truth?

As a related point, even if someone is not lying, it doesn't mean necessarily that what they say is the truth. How many people claim to have seen a ghost or a UFO? They aren't telling the truth but at the same time it isn't a lie. They really believe it. Maybe the Gospel writers really believed what they wrote, it still doesn't add any credibility to their story

Soul Winner · 11-02-2008 12:52pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Firstly it wasn't their story. They were not eye witnesses to the mission of Jesus and so they are only relaying someone elses stories. In your opinion was Mohammed lying when he wrote the Quran? Were the writers of the gnostic Gospels lying when they denied the literal truth of the resurrection? Were the writers of every single other Holy book lying and only the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were honest? Lets face it, with all these different religions and different interpretations are you suggesting that only 4 men in the entire history of human religion creation were telling the truth?

I never mentioned any other religion and I'm not too interested in them anyway. They don't make the claims Jesus made even if their religion is true. I don't need Christianity if Christ is not risen. Oh and only one (Luke) of the Gospel writers wasn't an eye witness to these events. The other three were.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As a related point, even if someone is not lying, it doesn't mean necessarily that what they say is the truth. How many people claim to have seen a ghost or a UFO? They aren't telling the truth but at the same time it isn't a lie. They really believe it. Maybe the Gospel writers really believed what they wrote, it still doesn't add any credibility to their story

Anyone ever had the flesh peeled from their body with a whip because they refused to deny that they had seen UFOs or Ghosts? Dragged to death in the streets? Crucified up side down? Pierced with swords? Stoned to death? Simply because they refused to refute these claims?

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2008 1:21pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh and only one (Luke) of the Gospel writers wasn't an eye witness to these events. The other three were.

I'm pretty sure most scholars now accept that all the Gospels, canonical and non-canonical, were written by non-eye witnesses.

Anyone ever had the flesh peeled from their body with a whip because they refused to deny that they had seen UFOs or Ghosts?

Again, this still does not prove a thing beyond that the had strong belief. Religious persecution was not confined to Christians don't forget. Do you give Hypatia of Alexandria's pagan beliefs extra standing because she suffered a horrible death at the hands of Christians who tore away her flesh with oyster shells and burned her mutilated body while she was still alive? Willingness to suffer does not equal proof of anything.

PDN · 11-02-2008 6:42pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most scholars now accept that all the Gospels, canonical and non-canonical, were written by non-eye witnesses.

And, as one who has studied and taught theology at post graduate level, I am pretty sure that you are wrong.

Sapien · 11-02-2008 8:03pm

PDN wrote: »

And, as one who has studied and taught theology at post graduate level, I am pretty sure that you are wrong.

How so? And in what kinds of institutions have you taught?

PDN · 11-02-2008 8:36pm

Sapien wrote: »

How so? And in what kinds of institutions have you taught?

How so? By standing in front of a class, using a whiteboard, video projector etc.

Or does the "How so?" refer to my belief that Depeche Mode is wrong? In that case my belief is based on two factors:
a) Many of the older liberal biblical scholars are now dead, and Depeche Mode's statement referred to what "most scholars now accept". The trend in biblical scholarship today is to view much of the older scholarship as unduly and subjectively radical. Modern biblical scholarship gives much more credence to the traditional claims for authorship of the canonical Gospels.

b) Depeche Mode referred to "most scholars". Since evangelicals have more incentive to enter the field of biblical studies than others, they would constitute the majority of scholars in this field. It would take a head count of every theological department in every university and seminary in the world to definitively prove this, but that certainly is the impression I gain through my reading of theological journals.

I have taught in a British University (mainly MEd students and prospective RE teachers) at an American Christian University, and in seminaries in Germany and Russia. All are fully accredited institutions under their respective national systems.

By the way, my reference to my own experience in the field is not an attempt to say, "I'm an expert therefore no-one can contradict me." I'm simply saying that my opinion is based on a familiarity with the world of theological education and the current developments in biblical scholarship. If others who are familiar with the subject want to express a different view then they are free to do so, but claims like Depeche Mode's tend to be made by those whose knowledge of biblical scholarship rarely extends beyond googling a phrase or looking up an article in Wikipedia.

Of course Depeche Mode may surprise me and turn out to be a Professor from Tübingen or someone with knowledge of biblical studies. In that case I look forward to an interesting exchange of views.

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2008 9:02pm

PDN wrote: »

And, as one who has studied and taught theology at post graduate level, I am pretty sure that you are wrong.

To be honest I can't say I am too surprised that a Christian claims their Holy Books are completely accurate, but I am entrigued as to what makes you and the supposed majority so sure that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were eye witnesses?

Bearing in mind that the most common dating for the earliest Gospel, Mark, is about 65-75 AD, and Jesus dying around 29 AD (assuming he died at 33 years of age and was born before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC) we can assume that someone who could be a useful eye-witness to his 3 year ministry would have been born no later than 11 AD, making him 15 when Jesus was 30. This would mean that the author of Mark would have been a man in his mid 50s (if we take the earlier 65 AD date) by the time he decided to write the first Gospel. If I am not being so leniant we could assume that Mark may have been around about the same age as Jesus and wrote the Gospel in 75 AD, in which case he would have been about 80, which is just as likely. If we take the mid point he would have been almost 70.

The average lifespan in the Classical Roman Empire was about 30, this however included child mortality so we can add a few years onto this to compensate (and also take away two or three from this because he was male). That said it is pretty safe to say that the author of the earliest Gospel was on borrowed time by the time he bothered to write his account, he was an old man and would have known that most of his generation were dead. Apart from the fact that time has a funny habit of causing inaccuracies in peoples memories it was also highly irresponsible of him to wait so long before putting what he remembered into hard copy, after all this was a man who witnessed God on Earth.

Let us keep in mind this was Mark, the earliest Gospel writer. Matthew and Luke may have been in their 70s to early 100s when writing their account, John even older. Of course to Christians this is no problem, sure don't you believe Moses lived to be 120 and Methuselah lived for just short of a thousand years, why the hell not believe these guys waited until they were relatively ancient by the standard of the time? To people living in the real world it might seem a bit odd though.

Soul Winner · 11-02-2008 9:15pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most scholars now accept that all the Gospels, canonical and non-canonical, were written by non-eye witnesses.

I'll let you and PDN argue that one out

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Again, this still does not prove a thing beyond that the had strong belief. Religious persecution was not confined to Christians don't forget. Do you give Hypatia of Alexandria's pagan beliefs extra standing because she suffered a horrible death at the hands of Christians who tore away her flesh with oyster shells and burned her mutilated body while she was still alive? Willingness to suffer does not equal proof of anything.

I've read her story and by all accounts she was ambushed and murdered and yes by Christians. The fact that she was murdered would not add to or take away any opinion I might have had of her before she died as there was nothing remarkable about her life as far as I have read to warrant it, likewise with many that have been murdered throughout history. She was not given a choice to denounce her position and/or to renege on any stance she took. Like I said she was just murdered. The disciples had a choice though. Denounce Jesus and live or preach him and die. You could call that murder as well but it is different. Andrew was still preaching the Gospel on his cross until he died three days hence. And all this for a lie that he knew was a lie? Even if he believed in a God he knew he was lying and therefore going to the wrong place. To say they were lying just doesn't make sense.

neuro-praxis · 11-02-2008 9:35pm

These kinds of threads make me want to claw my eyes out. Why are they tolerated, nay, encouraged, day in day out? The OP is obviously about fourteen and tired of going to mass.

Fanny Cradock · 11-02-2008 9:46pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The average lifespan in the Classical Roman Empire was about 30, this however included child mortality so we can add a few years onto this to compensate (and also take away two or three from this because he was male). That said it is pretty safe to say that the author of the earliest Gospel was on borrowed time by the time he bothered to write his account, he was an old man and would have known that most of his generation were dead. Apart from the fact that time has a funny habit of causing inaccuracies in peoples memories it was also highly irresponsible of him to wait so long before putting what he remembered into hard copy, after all this was a man who witnessed God on Earth.

A bizarre logic you have there. Should we disregard all those who lived in excess of the average? I love the way you arbitrarily add and take away a few years here and there, btw.

Life Table Approximating Roman Population 
(simplified from Coale-Demeny 2, Model South, Level 3, 
Female as cited in Parkin, Demography and Roman Society)

x	e(x)	x+e(x)	C(x)
0	25	25	3.3
1	33	34	9.3
5	43	48	9.8
10	41	51	9.3
15	37	52	8.9
20	34	54	8.3
25	32	57	7.8
30	29	59	7.2
35	26	61	6.6
40	23	63	6.1
45	20	65	5.6
50	17	67	5.0
55	14	69	4.4
60	10	70	3.5
65	8	73	2.5
70	6	76	2.2

x = Age
e(x) = Life Expectancy at age x
C(x) = Percentage of population between this age and the next

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

Just by way of reply to the study that you linked, you may find both of these surveys interesting. Both links are to surveys conducted amongst scientists to determine what % believed in God. Of the two I find the second particularly interesting.

http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/winter/sallyport/scientists.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4DB143DF930A35757C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Sapien · 11-02-2008 11:46pm

PDN wrote: »

How so? By standing in front of a class, using a whiteboard, video projector etc.

Or does the "How so?" refer to my belief that Depeche Mode is wrong? In that case my belief is based on two factors:
a) Many of the older liberal biblical scholars are now dead, and Depeche Mode's statement referred to what "most scholars now accept". The trend in biblical scholarship today is to view much of the older scholarship as unduly and subjectively radical. Modern biblical scholarship gives much more credence to the traditional claims for authorship of the canonical Gospels.

b) Depeche Mode referred to "most scholars". Since evangelicals have more incentive to enter the field of biblical studies than others, they would constitute the majority of scholars in this field. It would take a head count of every theological department in every university and seminary in the world to definitively prove this, but that certainly is the impression I gain through my reading of theological journals.

I have taught in a British University (mainly MEd students and prospective RE teachers) at an American Christian University, and in seminaries in Germany and Russia. All are fully accredited institutions under their respective national systems.

By the way, my reference to my own experience in the field is not an attempt to say, "I'm an expert therefore no-one can contradict me." I'm simply saying that my opinion is based on a familiarity with the world of theological education and the current developments in biblical scholarship. If others who are familiar with the subject want to express a different view then they are free to do so, but claims like Depeche Mode's tend to be made by those whose knowledge of biblical scholarship rarely extends beyond googling a phrase or looking up an article in Wikipedia.

Of course Depeche Mode may surprise me and turn out to be a Professor from Tübingen or someone with knowledge of biblical studies. In that case I look forward to an interesting exchange of views.

Ah, I see. As a physicist, I'm used to more accountable academic disciplines - perhaps Depeche_Mode is too. I imagine that I would be more inclined to take the views of your apparently rarifying "liberal" colleagues; and the idea that "liberal" - by which I take to mean non-religious - scholars are more subjective than evangelical scholars makes very little sense to me.

I'm sure you could understand an atheist pretty much ignoring the great swathes of evangelical theories on the provenance of scripture in favour of those of scholars who do not predicate their arguments on the divinity of the very thing they are investigating.

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2008 12:03am

Just by way of reply to the study that you linked, you may find both of these surveys interesting. Both links are to surveys conducted amongst scientists to determine what % believed in God. Of the two I find the second particularly interesting.

I must say that second link had me confused as it refers to the exact same surveyors as the example I had mentioned, Larsen and Witham (did you realise this or was it coincidence?). It took me a while to figure out what was going on but it seems that the survey your link refers to was among the wider scientific community and the survey I referred to was among the top scientists in their fields.

They point out that their 1996 survey revealed 60.7% of the wider American scientific community disbelieved or doubted God (a massive increase on the non-scientific community) and their 1997 study among the "greater scientists" showed a 93% disbelief or doubt. So all that your counter-point has shown is that the more specialised a person becomes in their field of science the less likely they are to believe in God. Your point has come back to bite you I think

.

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2008 12:52am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A bizarre logic you have there. Should we disregard all those who lived in excess of the average? I love the way you arbitrarily add and take away a few years here and there, btw.

I do admit my addition of years was arbitrary, however I hadn't got exact figures for life expectancy to hand (I wonder is the table you provide limited to citizens in Rome or across the Empire?). I don't say we should ignore those who live beyond the average, of course there is always the possibility that these people lived very long lives, what I do suggest is that it is unusual that all of them waited so long before writing them down. Why did they keep putting it off year after year after year? No eyewitnesses bothered to write a Gospel until between 35-45 years after Jesus' death seems suspicious to me, not beyond the realms of possibility, but certainly not what I would have expected to see.

I have to say that if this was a court case it would be pretty easy for a lawyer to discount the evidence given in the Gospels:

- No original document survives
- The witnesses were not neutral and were biased towards the character they describe
- We know of other writers of such accounts to assign names of prominant disciples in order to lend weight to their accounts (eg Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene etc)
- No neutral sources back up ANY of the claims given in the Gospels
- There was a concerted effort by later followers to destroy evidence which opposed the evidence of the Gospels
- Assuming the authors were eyewitnesses the accounts they were detailing were far in their past so the question of errors arise
- There is evidence for plagarism among three of the four accounts
- There are significant inconsistancies between the accounts

Reasonable doubt m'Lord? I think very much so.

robindch · 12-02-2008 1:23am

Sapien wrote: »

I'm sure you could understand an atheist pretty much ignoring the great swathes of evangelical theories on the provenance of scripture in favour of those of scholars who do not predicate their arguments on the divinity of the very thing they are investigating.

It's been a while since the Courtier's Reply last chanced by, and I believe the last time it did, it may even have been a response to one of your own posts, in which case humble-most apologies in advance for such failing to eschew such plethoric surplusage. Regardless of which, some may not have seen it. The original is here.

PZ Myers wrote:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Fanny Cradock · 12-02-2008 1:31am

Actually, I think you will find that those are two different surveys. The survey I linked to was conducted in 1997, mirroring a survey originally conducted in 1916. This took the form of a questionnaire containing 39 questions designed to enquire about matters of belief and morality amongst a broad spectrum of the scientific community. The sample size of the survey was 1000 scientists, randomly chosen irrespective of the field they specialised in. I believe there was a response rate in excess of 60%. Results from these replies reflected results observed 81 years earlier, i.e. that the % professing a believe in God in 1916 was the same as it was in 1997.

The survey you are talking about, while conducted by the same authors, was a replication of a separate survey from 1913. Conducted again in 1998, Larson and Witham chose to survey a smaller and more specific sample set (517) that operated over a smaller range of disciplines. However, these scientists were considered to be amongst the elite. Criticism was levelled at the authors for potential selection bias because of this. But I wouldn't know about the significance of that.

As with all polls and surveys people will draw their own conclusions.

I wasn't providing you with those links in a tit-for-tat manner - my survey is better than yours. I was really just trying to illustrate that for many scientists (and lets not elevate them or their opinions too highly) science and God are compatible.

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2008 3:01am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was really just trying to illustrate that for many scientists (and lets not elevate them or their opinions too highly) science and God are compatible.

OK, if we take your broader study it does show that fair sized minority of American scientists find God and religion compatable. But put this in the context of a country which is heavily religious, only 2% of Americans are atheist and 4% agnostic, so for "only" 61% of American scientists to claim doubt is not exactly a coup for religion.

Also I would expect this study would yield a significantly different result if taken in Europe, with a more relaxed attitude to atheism and where about 52% of the population believe in a God and 18% are atheist (Link - see pg 10 & 11). I did my undergraduate course in Science a few years ago and I was in a tiny minority as a practising Christian in the course (that minority got one member smaller in my final year, soon after a friend introduced me to "The Selfish Gene"), there was a few but not many and certainly nowhere near 40% as the American survey shows.

Soul Winner · 12-02-2008 12:30pm

neuro-praxis wrote: »

These kinds of threads make me want to claw my eyes out. Why are they tolerated, nay, encouraged, day in day out? The OP is obviously about fourteen and tired of going to mass.

Which part of the thread makes you want to claw your eyes out? The OP's question or the responses?

Soul Winner · 12-02-2008 1:10pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Reasonable doubt m'Lord? I think very much so.

You should read FF Bruce's book "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?"

This is a good start though: Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
Jimmy Williams

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2008 1:45pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

This is a good start though: Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
Jimmy Williams

This seems to be more pointing out that the NT documents as we have them today are close to how they were originally written. I have no problem in accepting that. This just points out that the reproductions were accurate copies of the originals, I'm no expert but on the face of it I would agree. The question is whether the originals were accurate representations of actual events.

(1) Real life events ---> (2) Original NT documents ---> (3) Reproductions of Original NT documents.

That website describes the accuracy of the link between 2 and 3, I'm interested in the accuracy of the link between 1 and 2.

PDN · 12-02-2008 2:32pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I do admit my addition of years was arbitrary, however I hadn't got exact figures for life expectancy to hand (I wonder is the table you provide limited to citizens in Rome or across the Empire?). I don't say we should ignore those who live beyond the average, of course there is always the possibility that these people lived very long lives, what I do suggest is that it is unusual that all of them waited so long before writing them down. .

I think the life expectancy thing is a non-starter as an argument. I was in Zimbabwe last month, where the average male life expectancy is 36 years. Many of the people I met were older than 36, but they quite confidently talk of projects that they plan to undertake in 10 or 15 years time.

As for waiting to write things down, that is very natural. There were an abundance of eye witnesses in the early years of the Church, and nobody thinks of writing history so close to the event. However, after 20 or 30 years, when eye-witnesses began to get a bit more scarce, that would be the time when you would expect people to see the need for putting an account in writing. Remember also that the early Church expected Jesus to return very soon, so would have seen no need to leave a record for future generations. However, as expectations were revised, and a new generation of Christians arose, the need for written records would become more obvious.
It would actually be more unusual if the Gospels had been written immediately.

The witnesses were not neutral and were biased towards the character they describe

As are most witnesses. Most history is recorded by people with biases. Think of a history of the Famine, or of the American Civil War. How many witnesses were impartial?

We know of other writers of such accounts to assign names of prominant disciples in order to lend weight to their accounts (eg Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene etc)

The works you mention were later inventions that tried to compete with the original Gospels. Therefore it is not surprising that the later forgeries mimic characteristics of the original. Your argument is similar to someone holding a genuine banknote and saying, "I'm suspicious because this €50 note has a picture of a bridge on it. After all, every fake €50 note I have seen had a picture of a bridge .........."

No neutral sources back up ANY of the claims given in the Gospels

Well, that is not strictly true. Neutral sources back up general claims such as that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, or that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governer in Judea. As for claims specific to Jesus Himself, no contemporary neutral sources exist, so of course they don't back up the Gospels. This is hardly unusual, since most events of that time were not recorded in writing, and even where events were recorded, few of the records have lasted 2000 years. In fact, it is truly remarkable how the Gospels have been transmitted and preserved.

There was a concerted effort by later followers to destroy evidence which opposed the evidence of the Gospels

Very questionable. I would suggest reading a bit more history and a bit less of the Davinci Code. In fact there was much greater effort put into destroying the Gospels (during times of persecution) than there was into destroying other evidence.

There is evidence for plagarism among three of the four accounts

Eye witnesses sharing notes and checking their sources before publishing their accounts? Shock! Horror! What damning evidence!

There are significant inconsistancies between the accounts

Eye witnesses viewing an event from different angles stress different aspects of what they witnessed.

robindch · 12-02-2008 2:46pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

This is a good start though: Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?, Jimmy Williams

I note that Williams omits mentioning that memorable quote from the Vaticanus manuscript:

Codex Vaticanus wrote:

"Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

More on that here.

Were you aware of that manuscript comment?

PDN · 12-02-2008 2:50pm

robindch wrote: »

I note that Williams omits mentioning that memorable quote from the Vaticanus manuscript:More on that here.

Were you aware of that manuscript comment?

You keep raising that, Robin. As always, I would point out that it is evidence that a quality control system was in operation.

robindch · 12-02-2008 3:32pm

PDN wrote: »

You keep raising that, Robin. As always, I would point out that it is evidence that a quality control system was in operation.

I believe I've only mentioned it once or twice before, and I do recall your last comment (which I would have responded to, had I been able to find it again in the rush of catching up that happens when I travel).

It's of course perfectly correct to say that a reproachful marginal note shows that a viable quality assurance system was in place. The presence of the note suggests equally strongly that there was a problem with the quality of copying to start with.

It's all a bit like a medieval king's food-taster. Granted, the presence of the food-taster is probably good for the king, but does rather suggest that -- for whatever reason -- the quality of the food's not all that it could be.

Wouldn't you agree?

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2008 4:21pm

PDN wrote: »

Remember also that the early Church expected Jesus to return very soon, so would have seen no need to leave a record for future generations. However, as expectations were revised, and a new generation of Christians arose, the need for written records would become more obvious.

So they misinterpreted what Jesus meant to say with respect to his second coming (which was surely not unimportant) but they got all the rest right, or could it be that they might have been equally fallible with other aspects of his message?

As are most witnesses. Most history is recorded by people with biases. Think of a history of the Famine, or of the American Civil War. How many witnesses were impartial?

Absolutely, it is impossible to be completely impartial. However when reading the accounts of any event witness accounts must always be considered with this in mind. When there is an absence of claims from "the other side" this principle should be all the more stringent.

The works you mention were later inventions that tried to compete with the original Gospels. Therefore it is not surprising that the later forgeries mimic characteristics of the original. Your argument is similar to someone holding a genuine banknote and saying, "I'm suspicious because this €50 note has a picture of a bridge on it. After all, every fake €50 note I have seen had a picture of a bridge .........."

Is there not some debate about whether the heretical sayings Gospel of Thomas was written before, or contemprary to, the canonical Gospels? It isn't certain either way but still...

Well, that is not strictly true. Neutral sources back up general claims such as that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, or that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governer in Judea. As for claims specific to Jesus Himself, no contemporary neutral sources exist, so of course they don't back up the Gospels. This is hardly unusual, since most events of that time were not recorded in writing, and even where events were recorded, few of the records have lasted 2000 years. In fact, it is truly remarkable how the Gospels have been transmitted and preserved.

Well I think your argument for the records probably not lasting 2000 years is seriously flawed, they wouldn't have had to last up to now. All they would have had to do was survive a century or so for us to at least find references to them by early Christian writers who sought unbiased sources to back up their claims. As far as I am aware we don't. For example as I mentioned earlier there was no reference to Josephus and his account of the life of Jesus before the third century by any Christian writer.

Even if the original accounts no longer existed we could assume they existed at one time had, off the top of my head, Justin Martyr, when writing to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, referred them perhaps to an account by Pliny the Elder of a Jewish leader who rose from the dead in Judea during the Prefecture of Pontius Pilate. They don't, so to say that there may have been records which are long since destroyed is not a good argument.

Very questionable. I would suggest reading a bit more history and a bit less of the Davinci Code. In fact there was much greater effort put into destroying the Gospels (during times of persecution) than there was into destroying other evidence.

Please, if I said something inaccurate then pick me up on the point. Don't try and discredit it by tarring it as being a bit of populist fiction. I may not be an expert but I do try to read reputable historical accounts of areas such as early Christianity and Gosticism. Do you deny the process of destruction of Gnostic and Heretical books by the Christian Church? The burning of the Great Library of Alexandria, which held numerous Gnostic and heretical writings, by Orthodox Christians? What about the Codex Theodosianus which stated numerous methods of punishing heretical Christians including:

C. Th. XVI.v.iii: Whenever there is found a meeting of a mob of Manichaeans, let the leaders be punished with a heavy fine and let those who attended be known as infamous and dishonored, and be shut out from association with men, and let the house and the dwellings where the profane doctrine was taught be seized by the officers of the city. Valentinian and Valens Augusti.

Eye witnesses sharing notes and checking their sources before publishing their accounts? Shock! Horror! What damning evidence!

Some would call it "getting their stories straight".

Soul Winner · 12-02-2008 4:43pm

robindch wrote: »

I note that Williams omits mentioning that memorable quote from the Vaticanus manuscript:More on that here.

He omits mentioning a lot of things. I just said that his page was a good start.

robindch wrote: »

Were you aware of that manuscript comment?

Can't say that I was aware of that no. But what does it mean? Here’s what I've gleaned from it.

This is what Heb 1:3 looks like in the Greek NT: Byzantine / Majority Text

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις (emp added)

According to your link the Vaticanus reads Heb 1:3 as: ποιησαμενος (make) των (the) αμαρτιων (offence) from των (the) αμαρτιων (offence) ποιησαμενος (make). It was changed from (reading it phonetically in English) "the offence make" to "make the offence” I don't get it? Can you elaborate for me please the significance in pointing this out? Are you just making the point that the copying of the New Testament manuscripts over time are questionable because of discrepancies like this?

If only we had the original manuscripts.

Tim Robbins · 12-02-2008 4:55pm

PDN wrote: »

If Jesus did not rise from the dead then He was probably a conman or a nutter. If He was raised from the dead, as Christians believe, then He is the Son of God.

Another possibility is that the Gospels authors were incorrect. Their imagination could have got the better of them, their critical facilities could have been turned off or the parts of the Gospels may even have been rewritten. Jesus may also have risen, but may not have been the son of God.
He may just have been a Prophet or someone with the power to rise.

There are quite a number of possibilites.

robindch · 12-02-2008 5:00pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

He omits mentioning a lot of things. I just said that his page was a good start.

Indeed. And the fact that he presents no discernible evidence for the prosecution suggests that he may be presenting a biased case, while pretending that it's not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But what does it mean?

It means that we cannot guarantee that the text of the bible that we have today is the same text that the original authors wrote. Despite people's occasionally very strong feelings to the contrary.

As Bart Ehrman points out in his book Misquoting Jesus, the number of discrepancies that exist between the known manuscript copies of the NT exceeds the number of words in the NT. And that strange fact is not advertised very widely.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If only we had the original manuscripts.

In a very real sense, that, my friend, is where the problem lies.

Soul Winner · 12-02-2008 5:54pm

robindch wrote: »

In a very real sense, that, my friend, is where the problem lies.

Hypothetically cutting to the chase. If I were to solve that problem for you today by miraculously producing all of the original biblical Old and New Testament manuscripts that were indisputably and unequivocally proven by the best biblical and non biblical secular historical manuscript experts in the world as being absolutely 100% bona fide genuine article authentic manuscripts. And all of these manuscripts credited the creation of the universe to God and that Jesus Christ rose form the dead would you believe it?

I rest my case.

robindch · 12-02-2008 6:25pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hypothetically cutting to the chase.

As somebody else pointed out elsewhere in the last day or so, there are two issues here in establishing whether the books we have today are reliable. The first attribute is their accuracy (ie, were the books originally accurate descriptions of what happened) and the second is their authenticity (ie, were the books unchanged from the time they were written).

If the books' authenticity could be guaranteed beyond any reasonable doubt -- and I can't imagine how one could realize your hypothetical, but for the sake of argument... -- then I would assume that the books are as about accurate as any other ancient text. Which is to say, quite possibly not very accurate at all, as even a brief survey of ancient literature will show you. Ancient literature, even serious texts, are filled with all kinds of weird and wonderful stories that nobody gives much credence to these days. The text of the bible is treated as an exception because it has the sanction of tradition, which, of itself alone, should make you suspicious.

So, if you achieved your hypothetical, no I wouldn't believe the stories, because you haven't either addressed or resolved the more important question of whether the authenticated accounts are accurate.

Some looper claiming to be God?

Comments