Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

galljga1 · 11-03-2015 12:11PM

hinault wrote: »

Your accepting that Jesus Christ physically existed is a positive.

But it appears that you don't accept that Jesus Christ was killed, died and was buried and after 3 days he rose from the dead.

Well, that's the bit I have trouble with Ted

orubiru · 11-03-2015 12:21PM

hinault wrote: »

Your accepting that Jesus Christ physically existed is a positive.

But it appears that you don't accept that Jesus Christ was killed, died and was buried and after 3 days he rose from the dead.

That's true. I can't really accept it. That's kind of because I didn't learn about Jesus in a vacuum. I know a little about history and the history of human civilisation, mythology etc.

We understand the nature of human culture and society. We understand that each culture, or group, has its own mythology. We can see, quite clearly, the parallels between the stories of Jesus and the stories of other mythological characters that pre-date Jesus. There is no basis at all for believing that the miracles or the resurrection are historical facts.

You have Irish mythology, most of which was destroyed or altered by Christianity. Why would you assume that the Irish myths are not historical facts but, on the other hand, you understand the Christian mythology as being factual?

hinault · 11-03-2015 12:26PM

indioblack wrote: »

Thanks. There was a slight sting in the tail. If a person chooses to act upon something that may not be verifiable it is reasonable to enquire why they wish to do so.

You make a very good point.

"Believing" something because that belief is a cultural norm or a social norm is not sincere.
A belief ideally should inform the intellect and the emotions.

The expression of belief, faith, isn't something that can be scientifically measured.

I'd argue that faith is similar in many ways to trust. Objectively we cannot measure trust. We can see the external human expression that is trust, but that external expression is not a complete, or scientific, measurement of trust.

We can't go to a scientific objective parameter and say X measurement = trust. Nor can we measure an individuals capacity to trust.
The same applies to Faith. How can anyone say that what informs their faith would persuade others to have faith. Like trust, people apply different criteria to inform their faith.

If you looked at the pews of Irish churches at a point in time, one could conclude from that external measurement of pews that Ireland was a nation of great faith. Is that any accurate measurement of faith? Scientific measurement? No.

hinault · 11-03-2015 12:35PM

orubiru wrote: »

That's true. I can't really accept it. That's kind of because I didn't learn about Jesus in a vacuum. I know a little about history and the history of human civilisation, mythology etc.

We understand the nature of human culture and society. We understand that each culture, or group, has its own mythology. We can see, quite clearly, the parallels between the stories of Jesus and the stories of other mythological characters that pre-date Jesus. There is no basis at all for believing that the miracles or the resurrection are historical facts.

So in essence you are saying that what is contained in the New Testament about the miracles performed by Jesus, none of those miracles happened?

If this your argument, can you explain why some many contemporaneous documents from that time sought to communicate the life of Jesus and those miracles and why those documents were written in diverse geographical locations hundreds (thousands) of miles from each other, at the same time?

galljga1 · 11-03-2015 12:43PM

hinault wrote: »

So in essence you are saying that what is contained in the New Testament about the miracles performed by Jesus, none of those miracles happened?

If this your argument, can you explain why some many contemporaneous documents from that time sought to communicate the life of Jesus and those miracles and why those documents were written in diverse geographical locations hundreds (thousands) of miles from each other, at the same time?

We are back to contemporaneous documentation.Perhaps one explanation is that what you are calling contemporaneous documentation were written over an extended period of time spanning decades. Word travels, even over thousands of miles. Because a story is told in two (or more) different locations by different people at different times does not necessarily make it true. The parish pump, or water hole has existed in one guise or other for a lot longer than 6000 years.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 12:46PM

hinault wrote: »

So in essence you are saying that what is contained in the New Testament about the miracles performed by Jesus, none of those miracles happened?

If this your argument, can you explain why some many contemporaneous documents from that time sought to communicate the life of Jesus and those miracles and why those documents were written in diverse geographical locations hundreds (thousands) of miles from each other, at the same time?

Well, we have Irish mythology and those stories have survived until the present day despite the fact that most of that mythology was destroyed or altered (to erase religious elements) by Christianity.

My explanation is that the life of Jesus and his miracles are a mythology written by men. The documents exist because they were written, by people. Just like the mythology of Ireland or Greece or Japan etc.

Why would you assume that the Irish myths are not historical facts but, on the other hand, you understand the Christian mythology as being factual?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 12:47PM

hinault wrote: »

So in essence you are saying that what is contained in the New Testament about the miracles performed by Jesus, none of those miracles happened?

If this your argument, can you explain why some many contemporaneous documents from that time sought to communicate the life of Jesus and those miracles and why those documents were written in diverse geographical locations hundreds (thousands) of miles from each other, at the same time?

Okay. This is interesting. Can you name some of these documents, cite them as to which miracles they talk about? It's not enough to, for example, quote Josephus who mentions something like "He was the Christ who appeared three days after death". That's very sparse information and has been suggested by many scholars to have been added in by someone who was not Josephus.

silverharp · 11-03-2015 12:49PM

hinault wrote: »

So in essence you are saying that what is contained in the New Testament about the miracles performed by Jesus, none of those miracles happened?

If this your argument, can you explain why some many contemporaneous documents from that time sought to communicate the life of Jesus and those miracles and why those documents were written in diverse geographical locations hundreds (thousands) of miles from each other, at the same time?

That's not as true as you are suggesting. Mark was the first gospel and Matthew and Luke were written by people that had a copy of mark. The later gospels up the miracle count.

If the miracles were historical facts then Jesus would have been huge, not just someone with a couple of hundred followers. As I half jokingly suggested the Romans would have kidnapped someone that could feed an army for free. The miracles didn't happen because the Jews of the day didn't see them nor believe they happened.

hinault · 11-03-2015 01:00PM

orubiru wrote: »

My explanation is that the life of Jesus and his miracles are a mythology written by men. The documents exist because they were written, by people. Just like the mythology of Ireland or Greece or Japan etc.

Yes, we accept that the 1st century contemporaneous (hundreds of) documents were written by men (women?).

What I am asking is why were these documents all written contemporaneously, and written throughout diverse locations separated by hundreds (thousands) of miles from one another, about the miracles which you say never happened?

Think about the 1st century. Try to visualise a time where people barely travelled outside the village where they lived.
Think about the scarcity of ink and papyrus. Think about how few people could even read or write.
Think about how information could only be verbally communicated.
Think about how information verbally communicated gets changed through forgetfulness, embellishment.

Then after considering all of that think about how 99% of all 1st century texts, accounting for the life of Jesus Christ, are textually exactly the same across all of these locations.

The mythology of Greece, Japan or Ireland wasn't communicated contemporaneously to people outside of those lands. Nor was it codified contemporaneously by writers outside those lands either.

hinault · 11-03-2015 01:04PM

silverharp wrote: »

The miracles didn't happen because the Jews of the day didn't see them nor believe they happened.

Yet it was the Jews who bore witness to what you say never happened.

It was Jews who recorded in documents actions which you say never happened.

galljga1 · 11-03-2015 01:06PM

hinault wrote: »

Yes, we accept that the 1st century contemporaneous (hundreds of) documents were written by men (women?).

What I am asking is why were these documents all written contemporaneously, and written throughout diverse locations separated by hundreds (thousands) of miles from one another, about the miracles which you say never happened?

Think about the 1st century. Try to visualise a time where people barely travelled outside the village where they lived.
Think about the scarcity of ink and papyrus. Think about how few people could even read or write.
Think about how information could only be verbally communicated.
Think about how information verbally communicated gets changed through forgetfulness, embellishment.

Then after considering all of that think about how 99% of all 1st century texts, accounting for the life of Jesus Christ, are textually exactly the same across all of these locations.

The mythology of Greece, Japan or Ireland wasn't communicated contemporaneously to people outside of those lands. Nor was it codified contemporaneously by writers outside those lands either.

Are the gospels textually exactly the same?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 01:08PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Are the gospels textually exactly the same?

Nope. And this runs counter to hinault's claim, since the four gospels in the bible are the ones chosen to be in the religion's holy book over that of all others.
Hinault, let's grant your claim. Let's hypothetically agree for the moment that all of those ancient documents agree with one another, have the same text etc etc.
How does that in any way act as evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead and perform all these other miracles?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 01:10PM

hinault wrote: »

Yet it was the Jews who bore witness to what you say never happened.

It was Jews who recorded in documents actions which you say never happened.

And yet...the vast majority of Jews at that time period were not christian or convinced to follow Jesus.

Let us not also forget that Jews at that time period also tended to record other clearly bogus accounts and recite them as if they were part of history, such as Exodus or Noah's flood.
You're trying to pass the Jews off here as being an unimpeachable authority on history, when they are anything but.

hinault · 11-03-2015 01:17PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nope. And this runs counter to hinault's claim, since the four gospels in the bible are the ones chosen to be in the religion's holy book over that of all others.

Incorrect.

1st century contemporaneous texts, 99% of those texts produced across diverse locations, are textually exactly the same.

So for simplicity sake, a surviving 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Rome is textually exactly the same as a 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Antioch.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 01:18PM

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

1st century contemporaneous texts, 99% of those texts produced across diverse locations, are textually exactly the same.

So for simplicity sake, a surviving 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Rome is textually exactly the same as a 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Antioch.

Care to produce said scripts? I find your claim here highly improbable given that we HAVE NO SUCH manuscripts. None. Last I checked, the earliest manuscripts we have for Luke, the earliest copies, date from the THIRD century. We have none from the FIRST.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 01:19PM

hinault wrote: »

Yes, we accept that the 1st century contemporaneous (hundreds of) documents were written by men (women?).

What I am asking is why were these documents all written contemporaneously, and written throughout diverse locations separated by hundreds (thousands) of miles from one another, about the miracles which you say never happened?

Think about the 1st century. Try to visualise a time where people barely travelled outside the village where they lived.
Think about the scarcity of ink and papyrus. Think about how few people could even read or write.
Think about how information could only be verbally communicated.
Think about how information verbally communicated gets changed through forgetfulness, embellishment.

Then after considering all of that think about how 99% of all 1st century texts, accounting for the life of Jesus Christ, are textually exactly the same across all of these locations.

The mythology of Greece, Japan or Ireland wasn't communicated contemporaneously to people outside of those lands. Nor was it codified contemporaneously by writers outside those lands either.

My knowledge here is a bit sketchy but The Iliad and The Odyssey both pre date The New Testament by some number of years.

Osiris has a very similar "back story" to Jesus and also pre-dates the New Testament by some considerable number of years.

Gilgamesh pre-dates Jesus by a couple of thousand years.

The most probable explanation would be that a group of people got together and invented this mythology to surround the historical Jesus.

If you are implying that accounts of Jesus miracles and resurrection were written in separate parts of the world at the same time, and also while Jesus was still alive, then I am going to have to ask for links or references..

Michael OBrien · 11-03-2015 01:20PM

hinault wrote: »

Yes, we accept that the 1st century contemporaneous (hundreds of) documents were written by men (women?).

What I am asking is why were these documents all written contemporaneously, and written throughout diverse locations separated by hundreds (thousands) of miles from one another, about the miracles which you say never happened?

Think about the 1st century. Try to visualise a time where people barely travelled outside the village where they lived.
Think about the scarcity of ink and papyrus. Think about how few people could even read or write.
Think about how information could only be verbally communicated.
Think about how information verbally communicated gets changed through forgetfulness, embellishment.

Then after considering all of that think about how 99% of all 1st century texts, accounting for the life of Jesus Christ, are textually exactly the same across all of these locations.

The mythology of Greece, Japan or Ireland wasn't communicated contemporaneously to people outside of those lands. Nor was it codified contemporaneously by writers outside those lands either.

99% of all 1st century texts? There are no originals from that time period.
What you have is some surviving copies of copies of copies.
Information was not ONLY verbally communicated. Copies of texts were sent all over the Roman empire and elsewhere. There is a long history of claims of heresy that attest to this in church histories. The final orthodox church destroyed heretical material or simply never bothered preserving it. In many cases the only evidence for the vastly different sects of Christianity is the references to them when the orthodox group condemned them, which often involved outright lies or exaggerations (as we see apologetics do today in regard to their opponents).

"Think about how information verbally communicated gets changed through forgetfulness, embellishment." Since it was decades before anything is even allegedly written down, this is likely to be the case. Early christians did not agree on anything, including how many gods there were and whether jesus was god, man, demi-god or spirit.

The copies written afterwards had plenty of errors, mostly due to the writers either not understanding the stories in the way modern christians think they do, or for political and theological reasons, or due to innocent attempts to 'correct' earlier mistakes in their view.
As time went on and these copies of copies of copies were gathered and those that were chosen to be preserved were selected, a certain homogeneity is naturally going to occur.

"Think about the scarcity of ink and papyrus. Think about how few people could even read or write." The messages don't have to be mass produced for everyone to still be copied many many times for different early 'churches'. All it takes is one or two people in a town to preach to the rest based on their limited understanding of things they never witnessed.

"Try to visualise a time where people barely travelled outside the village where they lived." This is incorrect. The common peasant may not have travelled much, but merchants, diplomats and priests did, let alone armies, messengers, envoys and so forth. Christianity grew as big as it did because it was adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th Century. Roman and Greece had plenty of literate people, many travelled quite a bit if they had to and there was communication throughout the empire. While it might take weeks or months to get to more remote areas, people did so, and did not think it strange because they had no other option.

hinault · 11-03-2015 01:22PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And yet...the vast majority of Jews at that time period were not christian or convinced to follow Jesus.

Let us not also forget that Jews at that time period also tended to record other clearly bogus accounts and recite them as if they were part of history, such as Exodus or Noah's flood.
You're trying to pass the Jews off here as being an unimpeachable authority on history, when they are anything but.

I'm not trying to pass the Jews off as anything, except that it was the Jews who wrote the account of the life of Jesus Christ and it was some Jews who bore witness to the life of Jesus Christ.

On a separate point, Jewish tradition has always valued scholarship very highly.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 01:25PM

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

1st century contemporaneous texts, 99% of those texts produced across diverse locations, are textually exactly the same.

So for simplicity sake, a surviving 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Rome is textually exactly the same as a 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Antioch.

OK, so lets say there's a Norwegian newspaper article written in 1920 that details an amazing story about a UFO sighting in Iceland.

In 1980 a Japanese newspaper publishes an article about a 1920s UFO sighting in Iceland.

The stories are identical in detail. They are both written in the 20th century. So what?

hinault · 11-03-2015 01:27PM

orubiru wrote: »

If you are implying that accounts of Jesus miracles and resurrection were written in separate parts of the world at the same time, and also while Jesus was still alive, then I am going to have to ask for links or references..

I'm not implying anything.

I am saying that there are thousands of documents all from the 1st century which record accounts from the New Testaments and these accounts, produced throughout diverse locations, are textually exactly the same across all diverse locations
eg. a text of St Lukes gospel written in Rome in the 1st century is exactly the same as a text of St Lukes gospel written in Antioch (or anywhere else) in the 1st century.

So how do you explain this?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 01:29PM

hinault wrote: »

I'm not implying anything.

I am saying that there are thousands of documents all from the 1st century which record accounts from the New Testaments and these accounts, produced throughout diverse locations, are textually exactly the same across all diverse locations
eg. a text of St Lukes gospel written in Rome in the 1st century is exactly the same as a text of St Lukes gospel written in Antioch (or anywhere else) in the 1st century.

So how do you explain this?

I'll repeat myself again, in case you missed it. Can you produce said 1st century copies of Luke from different places for us to examine?
The earliest copies we have for Luke are these two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75
which have been dated to late 2nd century/early 3rd.
As far as I can see, we have nothing on Luke from the 1st.
As for your assertion - so what? The Roman Empire was famous for their road network, which helped the spread of knowledge and their armies. Peasants would have stayed at home, but those who were literate were probably teachers and whatnot, who would have travelled all over the place. For your point to be true, you'd have to disregard this fact.

hinault · 11-03-2015 01:33PM

orubiru wrote: »

OK, so lets say there's a Norwegian newspaper article written in 1920 that details an amazing story about a UFO sighting in Iceland.

In 1980 a Japanese newspaper publishes an article about a 1920s UFO sighting in Iceland.

The stories are identical in detail. They are both written in the 20th century. So what?

:rolleyes:

It's rather easy to reprint a 1920's document in 1980, for starters.
Print technology is widespread, affordable, in 1980, is another factor.
Copies of documentation from 1920's, in 1980 is easily accessible.
There are three factors which immediately spring to mind.

You're deliberately choosing to forget the logistical problems concerning 1st century Palestine which I outlined to you earlier.

silverharp · 11-03-2015 01:34PM

hinault wrote: »

Yet it was the Jews who bore witness to what you say never happened.

It was Jews who recorded in documents actions which you say never happened.

which documents are these? the gospels werent written by Jews. But the question still stands why did someone who could feed 5000 not treated as a messiah by the majority of jews at the time. Uri geller was a bigger hit in his time for fake bending a few ould spoons.

marienbad · 11-03-2015 01:35PM

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

1st century contemporaneous texts, 99% of those texts produced across diverse locations, are textually exactly the same.

So for simplicity sake, a surviving 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Rome is textually exactly the same as a 1st century script of St Lukes gospel written in Antioch.

When you say contemporaneous what do you mean ?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 01:35PM

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's rather easy to reprint a 1920's document in 1980, for starters.
Print technology is widespread, affordable, in 1980, is another factor.
Copies of documentation from 1920's, in 1980 is easily accessible.
There are three factors which immediately spring to mind.

You're deliberately choosing to forget the logistical problems concerning 1st century Palestine which I outlined to you earlier.

What logistical problems? The Roman Empire is famous for the roads they build, which allowed for easy travel.

MaxWig · 11-03-2015 01:39PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What logistical problems? The Roman Empire is famous for the roads they build, which allowed for easy travel.

Don't forget the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 01:40PM

I also have another point, Hinault, regarding your "these copies of documents were the same".
That Papyrus 75 I linked to up above? It doesn't mention anything about Jesus's agony at Gethsemane. In fact, check here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ%27s_agony_at_Gethsemane#Manuscript_evidence
That section lists a lot of manuscripts that do have it, and those which don't.

So...what were you saying again about "99% of documents were identical"?

Michael OBrien · 11-03-2015 01:40PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Don't forget the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health

and Latin, a universal language that greatly helped communication around the Roman world.

MaxWig · 11-03-2015 01:42PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

and Latin, a universal language that greatly helped communication around the Roman world.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, public health and Latin, what have the Romans ever done for us?

orubiru · 11-03-2015 01:44PM

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's rather easy to reprint a 1920's document in 1980, for starters.
Print technology is widespread, affordable, in 1980, is another factor.
Copies of documentation from 1920's, in 1980 is easily accessible.
There are three factors which immediately spring to mind.

You're deliberately choosing to forget the logistical problems concerning 1st century Palestine which I outlined to you earlier.

OK but you seemed to be saying that a COPY of St Lukes gospel in Rome matches a COPY of the same gospel in other parts of the world.

It's not like someone in Rome and someone in Antioch wrote the same story with the same details without any contact with each other.

We know that stories like The Iliad survived and spread without even being written down. So it shouldn't be TOO much of a surprise to find copies of the same story in separate places.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments