HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Samuel ()
Date: September 05, 2009 09:50AM

I'm watching a program on the History Channel right now entitled "Decoding the Bible," which presumptuously, perhaps, explains Bible "stories."

The question often arises as to why God allows bad things to happen, but Bible stories (i.e., the Old Testament for Christians) describe bad things that God did. I was not brought up to learn this stuff and it all baffles me.

In this regard, can someone explain what's up with this story (from the book of Samuel) featured on this History Channel program ... about David? God wanted him to perform a census based upon the amount of money his people donated to him. But David disobeyed God and performed a direct head-count. This pissed off God so God visited a plague upon who this History Channel program refers to as "biblical people" (Jews, I suppose). Seventy-thousand biblical people die as a result of the plague. David bitches to God about it, telling God his punishment didn't fit the crime. David's uppitiness pisses off God even more, so God sends an "angel of death" to kill more biblical people. Then, God comes to his senses and apologizes to David, after deciding that David was right after all. But all these biblical people are already dead!!!!!!


Seems like God hasn't done this kind of thing in the past thousands of years, though. Is that correct?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 05, 2009 10:31AM

Samuel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm watching a program on the History Channel
> right now entitled "Decoding the Bible," which
> presumptuously, perhaps, explains Bible
> "stories."
>
> The question often arises as to why God allows bad
> things to happen, but Bible stories (i.e., the Old
> Testament for Christians) describe bad things that
> God did. I was not brought up to learn this stuff
> and it all baffles me.
>
> In this regard, can someone explain what's up with
> this story (from the book of Samuel) featured on
> this History Channel program ... about David? God
> wanted him to perform a census based upon the
> amount of money his people donated to him. But
> David disobeyed God and performed a direct
> head-count. This pissed off God so God visited a
> plague upon who this History Channel program
> refers to as "biblical people" (Jews, I suppose).
> Seventy-thousand biblical people die as a result
> of the plague. David bitches to God about it,
> telling God his punishment didn't fit the crime.
> David's uppitiness pisses off God even more, so
> God sends an "angel of death" to kill more
> biblical people. Then, God comes to his senses
> and apologizes to David, after deciding that David
> was right after all. But all these biblical people
> are already dead!!!!!!
>
>
> Seems like God hasn't done this kind of thing in
> the past thousands of years, though. Is that
> correct?

What's really interesting is that this story is told twice in the Bible, and contradicts itself.

The 1st Samuel version says, "Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.'"

In the 1st Chronicles version, it says, "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."

This contradiction is even in the King James version, which is widely regarded by fundamentalists as being written by God himself because of all the "thees" and "thous".

The entirety of the Christian faith is based on the fact that the Bible is the true and infallible word of God. I was a Christian for most of my life until I started to realize these obvious contradictions. All it takes is one erroneous statement to call the whole thing into question; if this is wrong, what else could be?

It all comes down to a matter of faith. Once I started to learn the things they don't teach in church or Sunday school, I found it difficult to keep believing.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: September 05, 2009 12:36PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The entirety of the Christian faith is based on
> the fact that the Bible is the true and infallible
> word of God. I was a Christian for most of my
> life until I started to realize these obvious
> contradictions. All it takes is one erroneous
> statement to call the whole thing into question;
> if this is wrong, what else could be?
>
> It all comes down to a matter of faith. Once I
> started to learn the things they don't teach in
> church or Sunday school, I found it difficult to
> keep believing.

I think you have just hit on the reason that most Biblical Scholars seem to go a little nutty over time. They can only explain away the inconsistencies for so long before their brain starts getting rewired from the BS parts. If you just take it at a less in depth level, taught to you by someone who is trying to promote the good parts, you do ok - once you delve past the surface and look deeper, you begin to doubt your sanity.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 05, 2009 01:05PM

It's going to get even more confusing now because just the other day in the Post, was an article about how they are currently re-writing the NIV (New International Version) of the bible. They are going to make it more "Gender neutral", meaning they want to remove or re-write all the dehumanizing of women parts.

My guess is they'll throw in a few updates regarding the now fact of evolution and probably make God seem a little less evil.

Apparently they update this version pretty regularly. I believe the last update was in 1984.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: proud atheist ()
Date: September 05, 2009 01:59PM

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Dawkins is an excellent writer -- I highly recommend his books if you want a good read and to learn more of the bizarre and often hilarious inconsistencies in the bible. History Channel keeps it pretty tame and respectful. Dawkins really lets loose. Good stuff.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 05, 2009 02:55PM

Dawkins is the Carl Sagan of Evolution and has done more to advance knowledge of it than anyone else ever, including Darwin. He does it in a clear, precise and easy to understand way. His books are excellent, especially "The God Delusion".

Richard is getting up there in years and it worries me who will carry on after him. Christopher Hitchens is a bit too abrasive for the mainstream and I don't think Sam Harris wants to take the wheel.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Samuel ()
Date: September 05, 2009 02:56PM

proud atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most
> unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and
> proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving
> control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic
> cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
> infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
> megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
> malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God
> Delusion
>

Many years ago, when I came to Wash D.C. to work for Uncle Sam, my office neighbor was an 80-year-old "theosophist." He said the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament is that the latter had a bettre press agent. The guy also directed me to Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" (written not long before his death in 1809), the second part of which completely trashes Christianity (that's why Paine was later reviled and probably why he is not elevated to the status he might otherwise deserve as a founding father. He referred to the Virgin Mary as having been "debauched by a ghost." hahaha

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Iz ()
Date: September 05, 2009 03:34PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The entirety of the Christian faith is based on
> the fact that the Bible is the true and infallible
> word of God.


Mephisto, that's true for some Christians, but by no means all.

For example, Michael Spencer is a theologically conservative Baptist who does not accept that the Bible is inerrant, as he's discussed in several posts gathered here: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-inerrancy-posts

I don't agree with Spencer on everything, but he's a serious Christian, as well as a smart, good writer.


> I was a Christian for most of my
> life until I started to realize these obvious
> contradictions.


Starting from the above-quoted assumption, that the entirety of the Christian faith is based on the infallibility of the Bible, I can understand where you're coming from.

But I think such an understanding of Christianity, that puts Biblical inerrancy at the center rather than the periphery, is misguided. This point is addressed by Spencer here: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/five-reasons


In my view, the core beliefs of Christianity are stated in:

- Matthew 25 (on the necessity of doing good to others)

- 1 Corinthians 13 (on the centrality of love)

- 1 Corinthians 15 (on the significance of the Resurrection)

- The Nicene Creed (a statement of Christian belief worked out in the 4th century that is accepted by virtually all Christians; note that Scripture (much less the inerrancy of Scripture) is not even mentioned; it is quite possible to be a good Christian and illiterate, as indeed most Christians (and most human beings) were prior to the invention of the printing press)


With respect to Scripture, in my view the central issue for Christians is not so much the inerrancy as the historical reliability of the New Testament respecting the person and the events in the life of Jesus, and in particular the Resurrection.

There has been much written on the subject, to say the least. Here's a decent introduction from a respected scholar (F.F. Bruce) who makes the case for the affirmative: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13969868/Are-the-new-testament-documents-reliable

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 05, 2009 05:08PM

But here's the fuck of it; when one thing is wrong, the only way to prove that everything else is right is by re-examining. There is no way for modern man to truly know what happened during the life and times of Jesus Christ; they have to accept that the truth of what happened is clearly written in the Bible.

There's no way to prove that Jesus really did die and resurrect, because all we have to go on are the words of men. The things these men wrote as fact are included with other things that are declared fact, but wrong. For example, it would be like shuffling a bunch of fake news articles with real ones, and asking you to pick out which ones are correct.

And, who's to say the people who wrote it had the best of intentions? Saul was a pharisee who persecuted Christians with zeal, went into the desert where NOBODY ELSE COULD SEE, had a vision of Jesus, converted, changed his name to Paul, and went on to create the church as we know it today. If I said today that Jesus visited me and told me to let everyone know that he really doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, nobody would take me seriously.

I'm not one of those people that will tell you that you're stupid for what you believe; I have my own beliefs that sound just as stupid on paper. But there is no "truth" in Christianity unless you believe it. That's why it's called "faith."

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Samuel ()
Date: September 05, 2009 07:28PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I said today that Jesus visited me and told me
> to let everyone know that he really doesn't have a
> problem with homosexuality, nobody would take me
> seriously.


And that's why some/many people cannot accept Mormons. If Joseph Smith had transcribed those golden tablets in, say, 2000 BC, rather than in 1830, then - hey - that's sacred!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: September 05, 2009 07:59PM

I once sat next to a Mormon young woman on an airplane that was going off to EUrope to do her evangelical work. Needless tosay i couldnt resist the temptation to discuss religion with her. The topic of the golden tablets came up...I asked her...Where are they today....these golden tablets given to them by an angel written by god. Her replywas..they are now lost! Imagine that..they couldnt even keep track of them for 200 years!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 05, 2009 08:30PM

I recommend anyone on here who bases their belief on what is written the New Testament pick up a copy of "Misquoting Jesus." It was written by a former Pentacostal scholar and leading Bible researcher who became agnostic when he realized that the New Testament is not inerrant.

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

For instance, you will learn that there are no original Hebrew or Latin copies of the New Testament. The "originals" are based on Greek translations from 300 AD. You will also learn that Constantine had whole sections of the "accepted Bible" thrown out, like the Shepherd of Hermas, while inserting Revelations, which was not widely accepted at the time. Furthermore, you will see that many stories from the Gospels, such as Jesus drawing a line in the sand, were added centuries later by monks and were not even in the Greek "originals."

Simply said, there is ample evidence that the New Testament is not inerrant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: September 05, 2009 10:43PM

There is no proof that Jesus actually lived.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 05, 2009 11:53PM

Was he the ONLY person named Jesus back then?

If he was a carpenter, what did he build?

Where did he disappear to until he was in his 30s? Most of his life is completely unaccounted for.

If he were to show up today, would he be considered insane and locked up in a sanitarium?

With all the disciples and people he hung around with, you would think there would be several detailed accounts of his personality, history, work ethic, hair style, skin tone, accent (if any), his favorite food, etc....

With all the wine he and his friends drank, did they ever get really drunk or stoned on all the weird drugs going around back then?

Did he ever crack jokes or laugh?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 06, 2009 12:17AM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no proof that Jesus actually lived.

I know it might be incredibly difficult for you, but please try to show at least a tiny bit of respect. Either discuss it from a reasonable perspective and provide more than just anti-Christian rhetoric, or shut up.

This is a discussion about the Christian religion, not an anti-Christian thread. Nobody's trying to shove anything down our throats, so please, pretty please, just once, try to not act like an asshole.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 08:15AM

Iz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The entirety of the Christian faith is based on
> > the fact that the Bible is the true and
> infallible
> > word of God.
>
>
> Mephisto, that's true for some Christians, but by
> no means all.
>
> For example, Michael Spencer is a theologically
> conservative Baptist who does not accept that the
> Bible is inerrant, as he's discussed in several
> posts gathered here:
> http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-iner
> rancy-posts
>
> I don't agree with Spencer on everything, but he's
> a serious Christian, as well as a smart, good
> writer.
>
>
> > I was a Christian for most of my
> > life until I started to realize these obvious
> > contradictions.
>
>
> Starting from the above-quoted assumption, that
> the entirety of the Christian faith is based on
> the infallibility of the Bible, I can understand
> where you're coming from.
>
> But I think such an understanding of Christianity,
> that puts Biblical inerrancy at the center rather
> than the periphery, is misguided. This point is
> addressed by Spencer here:
> http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/five-reasons
>
>
> In my view, the core beliefs of Christianity are
> stated in:
>
> - Matthew 25 (on the necessity of doing good to
> others)
>
> - 1 Corinthians 13 (on the centrality of love)
>
> - 1 Corinthians 15 (on the significance of the
> Resurrection)
>
> - The Nicene Creed (a statement of Christian
> belief worked out in the 4th century that is
> accepted by virtually all Christians; note that
> Scripture (much less the inerrancy of Scripture)
> is not even mentioned; it is quite possible to be
> a good Christian and illiterate, as indeed most
> Christians (and most human beings) were prior to
> the invention of the printing press)
>
>
> With respect to Scripture, in my view the central
> issue for Christians is not so much the inerrancy
> as the historical reliability of the New Testament
> respecting the person and the events in the life
> of Jesus, and in particular the Resurrection.
>
> There has been much written on the subject, to say
> the least. Here's a decent introduction from a
> respected scholar (F.F. Bruce) who makes the case
> for the affirmative:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/13969868/Are-the-new-tes
> tament-documents-reliable


The trouble with this is, of course, why is the character of the Old Testament God (and the NT one to some extent) depicted as an entity which seems to torment mankind?

Why believe any of it?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 08:20AM

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was he the ONLY person named Jesus back then?

No, in fact, IIRC, Josephus mentions many would be profits by that name. Of course modern translations of his works only translate ONE instance of this, leaving the rest in the original.

> If he was a carpenter, what did he build?
>
> Where did he disappear to until he was in his 30s?
> Most of his life is completely unaccounted for.

I wouldn't say this - there are the infancy gospels where the young boy Jesus kills three people within three days. In any event, this is just an instance of Jesus living up to the archetypical savior that was common around 100BCE

> With all the disciples and people he hung around
> with, you would think there would be several
> detailed accounts of his personality, history,
> work ethic, hair style, skin tone, accent (if
> any), his favorite food, etc....

Well, you would think there would be at least ONE contemporary account of him in history.

There are none. EVERY account is decades after the fact, most extra-biblical sources are simply accounts of what Christians believe, not historical accounts.

> Did he ever crack jokes or laugh?

Yes, in the Gnostic gospels.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 08:22AM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no proof that Jesus actually lived.
>
> I know it might be incredibly difficult for you,
> but please try to show at least a tiny bit of
> respect. Either discuss it from a reasonable
> perspective and provide more than just
> anti-Christian rhetoric, or shut up.

I don't think that this is disrespectful at all - it's actually remarkably on point. I wouldn't ask for "proof" per say, but there is a surprising LACK of evidence that Jesus was a historical character. His entire MO seems to be an amalgam of prior savior-godmen (ie, perseus, dionysus, attis, etc) mixed in with Jewish beliefs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Merritt ()
Date: September 08, 2009 08:43AM

Just ignore it all and be an atheist!
Attachments:
occamsrazorbu0.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: September 08, 2009 09:13AM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no proof that Jesus actually lived.
>
> I know it might be incredibly difficult for you,
> but please try to show at least a tiny bit of
> respect. Either discuss it from a reasonable
> perspective and provide more than just
> anti-Christian rhetoric, or shut up.
>
> This is a discussion about the Christian religion,
> not an anti-Christian thread. Nobody's trying to
> shove anything down our throats, so please, pretty
> please, just once, try to not act like an asshole.


Hmmmmm..a simple little sentence..and it is interpreted as shoving something down someone's throat! And the irony is..you beg for me to do the very thing you dont want me to do...

Well..I will try to restrain myself. There is no evidence from the time of Jesus that he ever existed. Nothing is written down (the new testament was written hundreds of years later)..no archeological evidence (thus the reason claimed "caskets/tomb stones" making reference to jesus have been so acclaimed..until they were debunked)...zero, nada...nothing. Finding evidence to the contrary would be considered a very major arcgeological and religious finding....but as of today..keep hunting.

My favorite supposed piece of proof is best articulated below..

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Well..there are lots of examples where people have done just that...since we commonly believe their beliefs to be false. The best example are the Mormons. They believe that Joseph Smith was given a new revelation by god...that were written on gold tablets. This new revelation..the book of Mormon...is considered heresy by the community of Christian churches. yet despite the falseness of their dogma many of the early Mormons were persecuted..died and were driven from communities. In fact the rate of Mormon conversions out paces those to all the Christian religions combined. So...people can fool themselves into believing just about anything..any lie..if it supports their vision of the world.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2009 09:20AM by Vince(1).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 10:06AM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well..I will try to restrain myself. There is no
> evidence from the time of Jesus that he ever
> existed. Nothing is written down (the new
> testament was written hundreds of years later)..

I believe that current scholarship puts the NT somewhere around 100 AD, which would be 70(ish) years later, not hundreds of years later. The main thrust of your point is still good though.

> no
> archeological evidence (thus the reason claimed
> "caskets/tomb stones" making reference to jesus
> have been so acclaimed..until they were
> debunked)...zero, nada...nothing. Finding
> evidence to the contrary would be considered a
> very major arcgeological and religious
> finding....but as of today..keep hunting.

True, however at best this would be an argument from silence. In order to move from agnosticism of Jesus' historicity you would need an explanatory theory. There are such theories out there, but they are getting little traction from the scholarly community. This isn't very surprising though. I will say that Doherty's thesis is pretty impressive.

I think that what most scholars have come to is similar to the Jesus seminary - in that Jesus' historicity isn't really in question, but the point is that the Jesus of the NT was certainly *NOT* the Jesus in history (if there was such a man).

> My favorite supposed piece of proof is best
> articulated below..
>
> Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist
> is the fact that literally thousands of Christians
> in the first century A.D., including the twelve
> apostles, were willing to give their lives as
> martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what
> they believe to be true, but no one will die for
> what they know to be a lie.
>
> http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Actually that isn't quite accurate. Here's why:

1. We don't have any trustworthy records of the 12 or even who they all might have been, much less how they died.
and more importantly
2. We have no evidence to suggest that IF THEY RECANTED they would have been spared death. In short, they could have been screaming from their respective crosses that they were lying and it wouldn't have made a difference as to their death sentence.

> Well..there are lots of examples where people have
> done just that...since we commonly believe their
> beliefs to be false. The best example are the
> Mormons. They believe that Joseph Smith was given
> a new revelation by god...that were written on
> gold tablets. This new revelation..the book of
> Mormon...is considered heresy by the community of
> Christian churches. yet despite the falseness of
> their dogma many of the early Mormons were
> persecuted..died and were driven from communities.
> In fact the rate of Mormon conversions out paces
> those to all the Christian religions combined.
> So...people can fool themselves into believing
> just about anything..any lie..if it supports their
> vision of the world.


Actually I think Joseph Smith died in a shoot out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: September 08, 2009 12:03PM

oh yeah, occam's razor definitely leans toward atheism because explaining the existence of the universe purely in scientific terms is far more simple. oh wait.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."095042938540

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 08, 2009 01:22PM

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh yeah, occam's razor definitely leans toward
> atheism because explaining the existence of the
> universe purely in scientific terms is far more
> simple. oh wait.


What part of the scientific explanation is difficult? If you compare the explanations needed for the big bang / evolution vs. that of a creator and who or what created the creator, the easier, more provable and more logical answer lie clearly on science's side.

Religious scholars can't even agree on who's interpretation of biblical text to go with. No one can possibly read the old testament and not be confused.

Granted, if you have little or no knowledge of science and the universe, the big bang / singularity explanation can be a bit hard to grasp, but evolution is actually quite simple to understand if one makes an effort to do so. I can't see how anyone could doubt it anymore.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: September 08, 2009 02:20PM

Um Numbers - there is really NO theory as to why the universe "Exists" from the scientific side.

Other than the big bang, which is a theory on how the universe is cyclic, and expands until it runs out of energy, then it is pulled back together due to gravity and eventually you should end up with another big bang. In theory.

There is no scientific reason as to why it is this way.

I mean, we may as well all live on a dust mote - like in "Horton Hears a Who!"

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Dana Peterson ()
Date: September 08, 2009 02:34PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um Numbers - there is really NO theory as to why
> the universe "Exists" from the scientific side.
>
> ... we may as well all live on a dust mote -
> like in "Horton Hears a Who!"


Hahaha. My "shop" teacher in 7th grade (decades ago) told us that what we know as our "universe" is merely part of the handle of someone's frying pan in a much larger universe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 02:38PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um Numbers - there is really NO theory as to why
> the universe "Exists" from the scientific side.

There are actually a few different scientific models as to why the universe exists: The Chaotic inflationary model, M-Theory, and Richard Gott had one that involved a universe which destroyed it's own creation time line.

> Other than the big bang, which is a theory on how
> the universe is cyclic, and expands until it runs
> out of energy, then it is pulled back together due
> to gravity and eventually you should end up with
> another big bang. In theory.

That's actually called the big crunch. The big bang refers simply to the expansion of the universe from the singularity.

> There is no scientific reason as to why it is this
> way.

Actually I do recall reading about a trigger mechanism - the idea being that there is no possibility of there being a state of the universe with absolutely no motion.

> I mean, we may as well all live on a dust mote -
> like in "Horton Hears a Who!"


M'kay.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: September 08, 2009 02:44PM

Yeah, thanks for the critical analysis of my short answer. If the Chaotic Inflationary Model is supposed to be a simple scientific answer, I will take creationism with the caveat that days to a God are not measured in any way meaningful to the rest of us mere humans lol.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: September 08, 2009 02:50PM

Numbers Wrote:
--------------------------
>
> I can't see how anyone could doubt it anymore.

LOL. Some chick I went to school with turned into one of those bible-banging evangelicals that believe in hardcore creationism. This summer she took her kids to the Creation Museum. It's gotta be one of the looniest things I've ever seen:

http://creationmuseum.org/

Some of the pics she showed me were hilarious: statues of people riding dinosaurs, a re-enactment of the garden of Eden, stuff about dragons, some plaque talking about how dinosaurs were vegetarians that lived peacefully next to humans.

A total bizarro world of sheer nonsense. Absolute mind-boggling dumbness. I'm actually sort of afraid to talk to her, that's how weird this shit is. I feel sorry for her poor kids.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 02:54PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, thanks for the critical analysis of my short
> answer. If the Chaotic Inflationary Model is
> supposed to be a simple scientific answer, I will
> take creationism with the caveat that days to a
> God are not measured in any way meaningful to the
> rest of us mere humans lol.


You are misapplying Occam's Razor if you are insinuating that it is meant to slice through a complicated answer in preference of a simpler answer. Occam's razor is about competing theories and the number of assumptions that one has to make in order for the theory to work.

Yes, the Chaotic Inflationary Model is very complicated, but the assumptions required for it to be true are substantially less then those that have to be required for 'God created the universe' to be true.

As an example, here's the question: How do presents appear under my children's christmas tree?

Hypothesis one: My wife and I make a list to determine what my daughter will like for Christmas as well as what she will need for the year. We go out several times over the course of a month to purchase these items from retailers. We then wrap the presents in elaborate material and stick them under the tree the night before christmas day.

Hypothesis two: Santa Claus arrives on christmas eve and creates presents via magic to put under the tree.

Hypothesis two is simpler to understand, but clearly wrong as it multiplies assumptions about reality and what is possible. Hypothesis one is more complicated, but the number of assumptions are far less then two.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: September 08, 2009 02:58PM

PP - You over-complicate so many discussions.

As far as "theories" go, it is much easier to believe the theory that there is a God who said "Go" and it happened, versus even making any attempt at all in understanding the more complicated theories that try to explain it scientifically. Most people never get to that level - they just say "the universe just is" and accept that without any other thought OTHER THAN there is no God involved.

I didn't mention Occam - someone else did. Based on the simplest and most easy to understand answer - God (someone's) did it.

EDIT: The good thing about the Christmas tree example - one of them is based on a realistic fact that can be proven over and over again. I know for a fact that Santa uses magic. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2009 03:01PM by Registered Voter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: fat man in red coat ()
Date: September 08, 2009 03:00PM

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, thanks for the critical analysis of my
> short
> > answer. If the Chaotic Inflationary Model is
> > supposed to be a simple scientific answer, I
> will
> > take creationism with the caveat that days to a
> > God are not measured in any way meaningful to
> the
> > rest of us mere humans lol.
>
>
> You are misapplying Occam's Razor if you are
> insinuating that it is meant to slice through a
> complicated answer in preference of a simpler
> answer. Occam's razor is about competing theories
> and the number of assumptions that one has to make
> in order for the theory to work.
>
> Yes, the Chaotic Inflationary Model is very
> complicated, but the assumptions required for it
> to be true are substantially less then those that
> have to be required for 'God created the universe'
> to be true.
>
> As an example, here's the question: How do
> presents appear under my children's christmas
> tree?
>
> Hypothesis one: My wife and I make a list to
> determine what my daughter will like for Christmas
> as well as what she will need for the year. We go
> out several times over the course of a month to
> purchase these items from retailers. We then wrap
> the presents in elaborate material and stick them
> under the tree the night before christmas day.
>
> Hypothesis two: Santa Claus arrives on christmas
> eve and creates presents via magic to put under
> the tree.
>
> Hypothesis two is simpler to understand, but
> clearly wrong as it multiplies assumptions about
> reality and what is possible. Hypothesis one is
> more complicated, but the number of assumptions
> are far less then two.

Talk about misapplication. You could have easily described Hypotesis one as my wife and I buy some gifts and put them under a tree. You could have then described hypothesis two as there is a man that lives in some extremely harsh conditions on the north pole (condidtions are getting better due to global warming though). He has an army of elves working year round to make toys that all say "made in china" on them for all of the children of the world. He has a team of flying reindeer that are able to encompass the world in a single evening allowing him to deliver all the toys. Furhter, this magic man consumes 16 million pounds of cookies and 1.2 million gallons of milk in a single evening.

Yeah, hypothesis two is way simpler to believe.

You suck as a Professor.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 03:07PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP - You over-complicate so many discussions.

I'm sorry that reality is complicated. It's really not my fault.

> As far as "theories" go, it is much easier to
> believe the theory that there is a God who said
> "Go" and it happened, versus even making any
> attempt at all in understanding the more
> complicated theories that try to explain it
> scientifically.

Technically speaking, the idea that god created the universe is not a scientific theory. In other words, it's not even on the table for discussion in science (for a number of reasons, none of which are that science has a naturalistic bias).

So you think it's 'simpler', then?

Let's examine this:

How is it simpler that an entity 'spoke' the universe into existence, when there was no time, no space, and more importantly no air or vocal chords for the entity to use?

> Most people never get to that
> level - they just say "the universe just is" and
> accept that without any other thought OTHER THAN
> there is no God involved.
>
> I didn't mention Occam - someone else did. Based
> on the simplest and most easy to understand answer
> - God (someone's) did it.

Right - you didn't mention Occam - you mentioned simpler. I do not find that the idea that god created the universe is 'simpler', since it involves a similar kind of magic in the same vein as Santa creating the presents does.

Yes, it's simpler to say or write out, but that's about it.

> EDIT: The good thing about the Christmas tree
> example - one of them is based on a realistic fact
> that can be proven over and over again. I know for
> a fact that Santa uses magic. :)

Fair enough.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 03:08PM

fat man in red coat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yeah, thanks for the critical analysis of my
> > short
> > > answer. If the Chaotic Inflationary Model is
> > > supposed to be a simple scientific answer, I
> > will
> > > take creationism with the caveat that days to
> a
> > > God are not measured in any way meaningful to
> > the
> > > rest of us mere humans lol.
> >
> >
> > You are misapplying Occam's Razor if you are
> > insinuating that it is meant to slice through a
> > complicated answer in preference of a simpler
> > answer. Occam's razor is about competing
> theories
> > and the number of assumptions that one has to
> make
> > in order for the theory to work.
> >
> > Yes, the Chaotic Inflationary Model is very
> > complicated, but the assumptions required for
> it
> > to be true are substantially less then those
> that
> > have to be required for 'God created the
> universe'
> > to be true.
> >
> > As an example, here's the question: How do
> > presents appear under my children's christmas
> > tree?
> >
> > Hypothesis one: My wife and I make a list to
> > determine what my daughter will like for
> Christmas
> > as well as what she will need for the year. We
> go
> > out several times over the course of a month to
> > purchase these items from retailers. We then
> wrap
> > the presents in elaborate material and stick
> them
> > under the tree the night before christmas day.
> >
> > Hypothesis two: Santa Claus arrives on
> christmas
> > eve and creates presents via magic to put under
> > the tree.
> >
> > Hypothesis two is simpler to understand, but
> > clearly wrong as it multiplies assumptions
> about
> > reality and what is possible. Hypothesis one
> is
> > more complicated, but the number of assumptions
> > are far less then two.
>
> Talk about misapplication. You could have easily
> described Hypotesis one as my wife and I buy some
> gifts and put them under a tree. You could have
> then described hypothesis two as there is a man
> that lives in some extremely harsh conditions on
> the north pole (condidtions are getting better due
> to global warming though). He has an army of
> elves working year round to make toys that all say
> "made in china" on them for all of the children of
> the world. He has a team of flying reindeer that
> are able to encompass the world in a single
> evening allowing him to deliver all the toys.
> Furhter, this magic man consumes 16 million pounds
> of cookies and 1.2 million gallons of milk in a
> single evening.
>
> Yeah, hypothesis two is way simpler to believe.
>
> You suck as a Professor.

?

1. I am not a professor.
2. I like the bit about global warming - it made me chuckle.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: fat man in red coat ()
Date: September 08, 2009 03:15PM

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fat man in red coat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Registered Voter Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Yeah, thanks for the critical analysis of
> my
> > > short
> > > > answer. If the Chaotic Inflationary Model
> is
> > > > supposed to be a simple scientific answer,
> I
> > > will
> > > > take creationism with the caveat that days
> to
> > a
> > > > God are not measured in any way meaningful
> to
> > > the
> > > > rest of us mere humans lol.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are misapplying Occam's Razor if you are
> > > insinuating that it is meant to slice through
> a
> > > complicated answer in preference of a simpler
> > > answer. Occam's razor is about competing
> > theories
> > > and the number of assumptions that one has to
> > make
> > > in order for the theory to work.
> > >
> > > Yes, the Chaotic Inflationary Model is very
> > > complicated, but the assumptions required for
> > it
> > > to be true are substantially less then those
> > that
> > > have to be required for 'God created the
> > universe'
> > > to be true.
> > >
> > > As an example, here's the question: How do
> > > presents appear under my children's christmas
> > > tree?
> > >
> > > Hypothesis one: My wife and I make a list to
> > > determine what my daughter will like for
> > Christmas
> > > as well as what she will need for the year.
> We
> > go
> > > out several times over the course of a month
> to
> > > purchase these items from retailers. We then
> > wrap
> > > the presents in elaborate material and stick
> > them
> > > under the tree the night before christmas
> day.
> > >
> > > Hypothesis two: Santa Claus arrives on
> > christmas
> > > eve and creates presents via magic to put
> under
> > > the tree.
> > >
> > > Hypothesis two is simpler to understand, but
> > > clearly wrong as it multiplies assumptions
> > about
> > > reality and what is possible. Hypothesis one
> > is
> > > more complicated, but the number of
> assumptions
> > > are far less then two.
> >
> > Talk about misapplication. You could have
> easily
> > described Hypotesis one as my wife and I buy
> some
> > gifts and put them under a tree. You could have
> > then described hypothesis two as there is a man
> > that lives in some extremely harsh conditions
> on
> > the north pole (condidtions are getting better
> due
> > to global warming though). He has an army of
> > elves working year round to make toys that all
> say
> > "made in china" on them for all of the children
> of
> > the world. He has a team of flying reindeer
> that
> > are able to encompass the world in a single
> > evening allowing him to deliver all the toys.
> > Furhter, this magic man consumes 16 million
> pounds
> > of cookies and 1.2 million gallons of milk in a
> > single evening.
> >
> > Yeah, hypothesis two is way simpler to believe.
>
> >
> > You suck as a Professor.
>
> ?
>
> 1. I am not a professor.

No shit, way to shatter my optimistic outlook on life

> 2. I like the bit about global warming - it made
> me chuckle.

no problem

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: September 08, 2009 03:34PM

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Um Numbers - there is really NO theory as to why
> > the universe "Exists" from the scientific side.
>
> There are actually a few different scientific
> models as to why the universe exists: The Chaotic
> inflationary model, M-Theory, and Richard Gott had
> one that involved a universe which destroyed it's
> own creation time line.


i've looked up everything listed but there is no theory of an "origin" of the universe, only how it is constructed from other parts. the origin of the first pieces is not mentioned. this origin is what is being referenced.

some people have argued that it's always existed which is interesting but is based completely on belief, much like the belief in God.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."095042938540

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 08, 2009 04:02PM

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Um Numbers - there is really NO theory as to
> why
> > > the universe "Exists" from the scientific
> side.
> >
> > There are actually a few different scientific
> > models as to why the universe exists: The
> Chaotic
> > inflationary model, M-Theory, and Richard Gott
> had
> > one that involved a universe which destroyed
> it's
> > own creation time line.
>
> i've looked up everything listed but there is no
> theory of an "origin" of the universe, only how it
> is constructed from other parts. the origin of
> the first pieces is not mentioned. this origin is
> what is being referenced.

I mentioned cosmological models - some require essentially eternal parts (M-Theory, with it's 'branes') and others that require the current view of quantum causality (Gott's model, Chaotic inflationary model). The first pieces could be a result of quantum fluctuations, which are uncaused events.

> some people have argued that it's always existed
> which is interesting but is based completely on
> belief, much like the belief in God.

I would argue that an eternal universe would be a more parsimonious model, one that didn't require any extravagant entities, therefore it would be the more rational model.

The god hypothesis suffers in this regard since it's essentially arguing from ignorance.

Edited to exchange 'begging the question' with 'arguing from ignorance' (I'm referring to logical fallacies, not attempting to be insulting).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2009 04:12PM by Professor Pangloss.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 08, 2009 04:53PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um Numbers - there is really NO theory as to why
> the universe "Exists" from the scientific side.
>

I never claimed such a thing, however, you are wrong about that. There are many theories why the universe exists. Can they be proven, no, of course not, yet. The difference is that science is at least trying to sort it all out, whereas religion takes the simpleton way out and blames/credits everything on a deity, without having a single shred of evidence to back it up.


> Other than the big bang, which is a theory on how
> the universe is cyclic, and expands until it runs
> out of energy, then it is pulled back together due
> to gravity and eventually you should end up with
> another big bang. In theory.
>
> There is no scientific reason as to why it is this
> way.

Again, there are theories, just not enough facts to back them up, but at least an effort is being made to establish a logical explanation.


> I mean, we may as well all live on a dust mote -
> like in "Horton Hears a Who!"


The sneeze theory is actually is a more plausible explanation than a deity snapping his/her fingers and creating something from nothing using magic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 08, 2009 05:16PM

It is impossible for human comprehension to grasp the concept of the beginning and end of the universe. We can talk about it, theorize about it, offer proof to back up our claims, but we will never, ever know.

Believe in science, God, or a cosmic cow, it doesn't really make a difference. Each is just as likely to be true as far for all we know.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Samuel ()
Date: September 08, 2009 05:30PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is impossible for human comprehension to grasp
> the concept of the beginning and end of the
> universe. We can talk about it, theorize about
> it, offer proof to back up our claims, but we will
> never, ever know.
>
> Believe in science, God, or a cosmic cow, it
> doesn't really make a difference. Each is just as
> likely to be true as far for all we know.


Absolutely.

Mephisto - day after day you are the most logical and most rational (i.e., sane) poster on FFXU). And your discourse is some of the more interesting.

Seriously.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 08, 2009 05:32PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is impossible for human comprehension to grasp
> the concept of the beginning and end of the
> universe. We can talk about it, theorize about
> it, offer proof to back up our claims, but we will
> never, ever know.
>
> Believe in science, God, or a cosmic cow, it
> doesn't really make a difference. Each is just as
> likely to be true as far for all we know.


This is a lazy hypothesis. It is certainly true that if we all saw it this way, we would certainly never find out anything about the cosmos or how and why it began.

Look at how much more we know about all this than we did just 400 years ago merely because of the human need to know what's around the next corner. We are explorers by nature and the only thing that could end that trait is religious de-volution.

Personally, Im fascinated by the universe and have always wanted to learn more about it. I could never just turn my back on all those ballsy people throughout history who fought religious persecution because they needed to know what's really happening in the stars and here on Earth.

Who knows, one day we may actually find out the answers to why and how, but we never will if we don't ask.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Iz ()
Date: September 08, 2009 10:54PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recommend anyone on here who bases their belief
> on what is written the New Testament pick up a
> copy of "Misquoting Jesus." It was written by a
> former Pentacostal scholar and leading Bible
> researcher who became agnostic when he realized
> that the New Testament is not inerrant.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus


Mark D. Roberts is a Presbyterian pastor with a PhD from Harvard Divinity. His take on Ehrman is summarized here:
The greatest irony in Misquoting Jesus lies at the heart of Ehrman’s argument against the trustworthiness of the manuscripts. The main point of his book is to undermine confidence in the New Testament on the ground that copyists changed the manuscripts, both intentionally and accidentally. One would expect Ehrman to put forth dozens of examples where we simply don’t have any idea what the autographs actually said. Such repeated uncertainty would lead to the conclusion that we can’t know with assurance what the New Testament writers, including the Gospel authors, actually wrote.

But, in fact, Ehrman’s book is filled with examples that prove the opposite point.

He does indeed offer many cases of textual variants.

In virtually every case, Ehrman confidently explains what the change was, what the earlier manuscript actually said, and what motivated the copyist.

In other words, Ehrman’s book, though intending to weaken our certainty about the New Testament text, actually demonstrates how the abundance of manuscripts and the antiquity of manuscripts, when run through the mill of text-critical methodology, allow us to know with a very high level of probability what the evangelists and other New Testament authors wrote.


This might explain why there are many textual critics who are committed Christians with an evangelical view of Scripture.

I would refer you to Roberts' full-length, careful (and I think persuasive) critique of Ehrman, here: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/biblequran.htm

A similarly careful, much more detailed critique can be found here: http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Misquoting.html


> For instance, you will learn that there are no
> original Hebrew or Latin copies of the New
> Testament. The "originals" are based on Greek
> translations from 300 AD.


First of all, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Latin. It was subsequently translated from Greek into Latin (first Old Latin, then Classical Latin) and many other languages (Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Slavonic, etc.) as it was transmitted by copyists and scribes around the ancient world.

We don't have the autograph, or original copy of any New Testament document. But then, we don't have the autographs of any significant ancient writings, such as the works of Aristotle, or Plato, or Greek historians such as Thucydides or Suetonius.

Furthermore, in the case of those last-mentioned authors, the gap between the date of writing and the earliest extant copy is quite large - 700 to 1300 years (see table here: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html) - and the number of copies is small (less than 100, sometimes less than a dozen ( http://www.theapologiaproject.org/WHYIBE~1.pdf )).

By comparison, the gap between the date of authorship of the New Testament manuscripts and the earliest extant copy is relatively small - about 250 years in the case of the Codex Sinaiticus (circa 350 AD) and the Codex Vaticanus (same), which are, respectively, complete and nearly complete copies of the NT.

Importantly, significant portions of the New Testament are found in much earlier manuscripts, such as the Chester Beatty papyri, which dates to 200 AD (Pauline epistles), and 250 AD (the Gospels and Acts), thus narrowing the gap to some 100-150 years.

Fragments of the Gospel of John have been dated to circa 138 AD (the Rylands papyrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52). In turn, these earlier portions and fragments correspond with the complete manuscripts of the mid-fourth century.

Also, in comparison to the relative paucity of manuscript evidence for such writers as Suetonius, etc., there are literally thousands of copies of the NT from circa 200 AD through circa 500 AD, evidence that allows textual critics like Ehrman to cross-reference and thus determine, with considerable certainty, the original text underlying any textual variants.

Finally, the findings of the NT textual critics are buttressed by a substantial body of additional evidence -- the many quotations of the NT found in the writings of the early Church Fathers, circa 90 AD - 400 AD.

Thus for example, the seven epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, written circa 110-125 AD, quote from several NT documents.

This large body of manuscript and other evidence undergirds the opinion held by the vast majority of NT scholars (liberal and conservative) that the entirety of the NT was written by the year 100 AD, and that the text we have today is a reliable and substantially accurate copy of what was written in the first century.

Indeed, even Ehrman has gone so far as to say: "If you're asking are there passages [in the New Testament] where I am just virtually certain we know what the author wrote, then the answer is yes. Most passages we're pretty sure what the author wrote. We might be wrong, so I'd say the certainty is probably at 99%. But there are lots and lots of passages like that... In many cases, yes of course we know, even know pretty much exactly what the text said." (Jan. 10, 2006 interview with Bart Ehrman on Issues, Etc., hour 3 starting at @ 10:00; available for download here: http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_01_10_06.htm).

Thus where Ehrman *really* parts company with orthodox Christians is not so much in his conclusions as a textual critic about textual variants and the like (which for the most part are not outside the mainstream of textual critical scholarship), but in his interpretation of the New Testament.


> You will also learn that
> Constantine had whole sections of the "accepted
> Bible" thrown out, like the Shepherd of Hermas,
> while inserting Revelations, which was not widely
> accepted at the time.

This reference to Constantine throwing out whole sections of the Bible sounds like something out of Dan Brown.

Although I frequently find Ehrman's arguments rather tendentious, he is unquestionably a serious scholar, and I frankly doubt he would make such a ridiculous claim. Can you provide a cite to where Ehrman makes a statement about Constantine along the lines you suggest?

I can cite to where he says the opposite. In a belief.net interview about The Da Vinci Code, Ehrman states: "it's not true that Constantine decided which books to include in the New Testament; he had nothing to do with it." http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/06/Unpacking-The-Code.aspx

Ehrman adds this about the argument made by Teabing, the lead character in DVC (who is basically a mouthpiece for author Brown's views):
Teabing says that the [Nicene] council was called because Constantine wanted to declare Jesus divine, and that's what the council was about, deciding whether Jesus is divine or not. And that he used the council as a way of deciding which books would be included in the New Testament, and they just included the books that called Jesus divine and excluded all the others.

That's wrong on every point. The books of the New Testament, in fact, don't go out of their way to call Jesus divine; and the books that were excluded from the New Testament do call Jesus divine. So it's wrong all around.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/06/Unpacking-The-Code.aspx?p=2


> Furthermore, you will see
> that many stories from the Gospels, such as Jesus
> drawing a line in the sand, were added centuries
> later by monks and were not even in the Greek
> "originals."


Ehrman doesn't claim that "many stories from the Gospels... were added centuries later." That's a gross exaggeration of his position (again, I would welcome a citation from Ehrman where he makes such a claim).

As Roberts notes, "The only places where a large chunk of text is disputed are John 7:53-8:11 [the woman caught in adultery (when Jesus draws a line in the sand)] and Mark 16:9-19 [the longer ending to Mark]. What this means is that text critical scholars, spanning a wide range of theological commitments, are largely in agreement about the originality of the vast majority of the New Testament." http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/biblequran.htm

Orthodox Christians have known about and engaged in textual criticism for a long time, and in most contemporary Bible translations problem passages like the ones cited above are bracketed or footnoted. For example, I have a 1941 translation that footnotes the sand passage: "This passage is wanting in many Greek MSS."


> Simply said, there is ample evidence that the New
> Testament is not inerrant.


Well, that depends on how you define "inerrant" for purposes of this theological question. It's not something that really interests me and so I haven't made a study of it, but I know that among those who take the subject of inerrancy seriously, many would exclude scribal errors, which most or all of Ehrman's objections can at least arguably be reduced to.

On the other hand, perceived or actual contradictions in the text - such as the one pointed out by Mephisto in his first post - are a different matter. All inerrantists would say the Bible is without contradiction, and they would have different ways of tackling perceived contradictions such as the one Mephisto cites.

But for the sake of argument, let's grant your point that Ehrman has established that scripture is not inerrant.

The question then becomes, does Ehrman point to any textual variants or scribal errors that cast a shadow on fundamental Christian doctrines?

I'm not aware that he does, and Roberts (among others) argues specifically that he does not. For example, if it were established that the "writing in the sand" anecdote were entirely fictional, we might regret the loss of an intriguing (although famously cryptic, in that we're not told exactly *what* Jesus wrote in the sand) narrative detail, but that loss would not touch on any matter of Christian doctrine.

For those not deeply invested in inerrancy, as such, but more concerned with the general historical reliability of the New Testament (and I would count myself among the latter), Ehrman's textual critical findings are not particularly troubling.

In fact, as Roberts points out, Ehrman's findings actually support the conclusion that textual-critical analysis "allows us to know with a very high level of probability what the evangelists and other New Testament authors wrote." http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/biblequran.htm


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no proof that Jesus actually lived.

There's actually a lot of evidence, which is nicely summarized in this series of short articles: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/knowaboutjesus.htm

Some of the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' existence includes the writings of Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus, the Talmud, second-century Christian texts, and early gnostic works such as The Gospel of Thomas.

Of course in addition to this, there is the witness of the New Testament itself, about which, for example, the secular historian Will Durant (variously an atheist or agnostic during his adult life) had this to say:
Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed: the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.

That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

(from Caesar and Christ (the third volume of Durant's Story of Civilisation) as quoted here: http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm)


In sum, "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_a_historical_person


MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But here's the fuck of it; when one thing is
> wrong, the only way to prove that everything else
> is right is by re-examining. There is no way for
> modern man to truly know what happened during the
> life and times of Jesus Christ; they have to
> accept that the truth of what happened is clearly
> written in the Bible.
>
> There's no way to prove that Jesus really did die
> and resurrect, because all we have to go on are
> the words of men. The things these men wrote as
> fact are included with other things that are
> declared fact, but wrong. For example, it would
> be like shuffling a bunch of fake news articles
> with real ones, and asking you to pick out which
> ones are correct.
>
> And, who's to say the people who wrote it had the
> best of intentions? Saul was a pharisee who
> persecuted Christians with zeal, went into the
> desert where NOBODY ELSE COULD SEE, had a vision
> of Jesus, converted, changed his name to Paul, and
> went on to create the church as we know it today.
> If I said today that Jesus visited me and told me
> to let everyone know that he really doesn't have a
> problem with homosexuality, nobody would take me
> seriously.
>
> I'm not one of those people that will tell you
> that you're stupid for what you believe; I have my
> own beliefs that sound just as stupid on paper.
> But there is no "truth" in Christianity unless you
> believe it. That's why it's called "faith."


You're right about faith, and I hear where you're coming from. In brief, I think there are sound reasons to have faith -- and yet, you certainly can't "prove" Christianity like a mathematical proof. But on the other hand, in my view, it's not irrational to have faith (some reasons for why I think so are touched on above). And too, faith is a gift; facts, evidence, human reason (which is, I believe, also a gift from God) can provide a foundation, but to truly believe, with conviction, is a gift of God's grace -- for which you can indeed pray, even if it's a conditional prayer, i.e., even if you're not particularly sure there's a God out there to hear your prayer, you can still ask that God - who may or may not exist - to reveal himself to you. And I would encourage you to make that prayer.

Regarding Paul, it's just my opinion, shared by some but certainly not all, that he was a genius. I don't put too many people in that category - Shakespeare, Mozart, Picasso, a handful of others (I'm more interested in the arts than the sciences). I trust Paul. That's obviously a highly subjective opinion. But he has a living, human voice that speaks to me - in the same way any great writer speaks to me - a voice that comes alive in my mind in an authentic and profound way.

I recall sitting in church in my early 20s, and looking at the crucifix above the altar with a sad, profound realization that Christianity was a myth. I was sad because I knew my loss of faith would make my parents sad. But there it was -- I knew it was false, a beautiful story, perhaps, but just a story, a myth. And yet, I made a conditional prayer, to the God whom I really wasn't sure existed -- reveal yourself to me, if you are out there. If Christianity is not a myth, let me see that, let me understand that. The response to this prayer: nothing.

But over the next three years, in a slow, almost imperceptible process, I edged closer to belief. From agnosticism - I was never an atheist; I could never believe that everything had evolved out of nothing - to deism or theism. And then to a sort of picking-around-the-edges investigation of the New Testament, that gradually became more focused, in particular on the testimony of Paul, and especially 1 Corinthians 15, which ultimately became for me a stepping-stone to faith.

There are very few serious Bible scholars who dispute that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul, and that it was written in the early to mid 50s AD.

In chapter 15 of that letter, Paul refers to a very early creed which he had passed on to the Corinthians. Its clauses are all marked by the word that:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins in accordance
with the Scriptures,
that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day in
accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter),
then to the twelve...


Those four thats enshrine a precious kernel of Christian belief from the very earliest days of the church. Paul reminds the Corinthians that he had told them all this when he first evangelized them (circa AD 49).

But it was much older than that. He tells us that he received it when he was converted, which was at least fifteen years earlier (see Galatians 1:18, 2:1). We are getting back perilously close to the resurrection itself if we are forced to place Paul's conversion somewhere in the mid-30s AD.

But Paul still has not finished. In the words I delivered... I received he is using the language of received tradition and its transmission. In other words, the resurrection creed he cites here was already traditional in Christian circles before Paul became a Christian. It takes us back to the very first days of the church.

There's not much chance for legend and embellishment to have crept in here.

C.S. Lewis was, initially at least, a most reluctant convert to Christianity. A respected professor of literature at Oxford, when he became convinced of the existence of God in his early thirties he began an intensive study of various world religions. Of the New Testament he wrote: "I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste."

Admittedly, the historical record is such that it doesn't force anyone's hand; again, you can't prove Christianity in a mathematical sense. But that same historical record is sufficiently sturdy, in my opinion, to provide a rational foundation for the next step, of faith. My faith is centered on my belief in the Resurrection. Again, respectfully, I would ask you to consider that conditional prayer I mentioned; consider making it on your knees, with all due seriousness; and too, as a sign of good faith as it were, promise that you will put away any behavior which is shown or revealed to you, in your conscience, is wrong. Such a conditional prayer is not a magic formula -- but I do believe in a certain dynamic: as you draw closer, or try to draw closer to God, he will draw closer to you.


Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The trouble with this is, of course, why is the
> character of the Old Testament God (and the NT one
> to some extent) depicted as an entity which seems
> to torment mankind?
>
> Why believe any of it?


The problem of evil. That's a rather big one, my friend. I'm sure you're familiar with the standard arguments (both with respect to the OT, and life in general), and am fairly confident we could exchange 100 posts on the subject, and nobody's mind would be changed. Ten years ago, I might have been up for the 100 posts. Respectfully, I no longer am.

-----------------------------------------------------

Correction: In my first post I said that Scripture is not even mentioned in the Nicene Creed. That's incorrect. The Creed states that on "the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures". I do think my larger point stands that ancient Christianity was not centered on Scripture in the way some denominations are today -- I don't mean to misrepresent anyone's views, but it does seem like there are some people who believe that Jesus is true because the Bible is true, rather than seeing Jesus as the foundation upon whom the authenticity of the Scriptures rests.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 08, 2009 11:05PM

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a lazy hypothesis. It is certainly true
> that if we all saw it this way, we would certainly
> never find out anything about the cosmos or how
> and why it began.

Just because you can't attain perfection is no reason to stop trying. Every scientist alive knows that they will never reach the end of their chosen field of research, but that doesn't stop them from trying. But, when dealing with a concept as how everything we know first came into existence, I find it more likely that humanity will be extinct long before we even get close to the answer.

Big Bang? Sure, I can buy that. However, "conservation of matter" says that matter can't be destroyed or created, only change forms. The purely scientific approach to the beginning of the universe still has the problem of "where did that big fucking rock come from?"

The only logical explanation is that, for the universe as we know it today to exist, it had to have always existed. Which isn't very logical at all.

> Look at how much more we know about all this than
> we did just 400 years ago merely because of the
> human need to know what's around the next corner.
> We are explorers by nature and the only thing that
> could end that trait is religious de-volution.

And I say thank God for religion. Our technology far surpasses our supposed humanity. Until we figure out how to take care of this planet, we shouldn't be trying to branch out to others.

Otherwise, we are little more than viruses on the universal scale. We'll move to consume until there's nothing left, because that is what humans do.

> Personally, Im fascinated by the universe and have
> always wanted to learn more about it. I could
> never just turn my back on all those ballsy people
> throughout history who fought religious
> persecution because they needed to know what's
> really happening in the stars and here on Earth.

Ok.

> Who knows, one day we may actually find out the
> answers to why and how, but we never will if we
> don't ask.

Wouldn't that kind of take the joy out of living?

What if they found out that the Gaia Theory is actually the correct one, and that we are just micro-organisms that make up part of a larger life-form?

What if they prove without a doubt that there is no God, there is no after-life, there is no human soul, and that we really are just sacks of meat inhabited by symbiotic colonies of bacteria whose only purpose is to breed? When individual human life is widely regarded as cheap and meaningless, there will simply be less guilt about killing people, because hey, fuck it, not like it matters anyway.

Religion is the perfect tool to control the largest amount of people possible, and it very well could be the only reason we're still here, whether we like it or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2009 11:06PM by MrMephisto.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: September 08, 2009 11:15PM

+1M

Well put MrMephisto.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: September 09, 2009 12:29AM

MrMephisto Wrote:

> Just because you can't attain perfection is no
> reason to stop trying. Every scientist alive
> knows that they will never reach the end of their
> chosen field of research, but that doesn't stop
> them from trying. But, when dealing with a
> concept as how everything we know first came into
> existence, I find it more likely that humanity
> will be extinct long before we even get close to
> the answer.
>

That's very possible, but not a certainty, so lets keep at it.


> Big Bang? Sure, I can buy that. However,
> "conservation of matter" says that matter can't be
> destroyed or created, only change forms. The
> purely scientific approach to the beginning of the
> universe still has the problem of "where did that
> big fucking rock come from?"
>

For starters, it wasn't a big rock. Matter can be created from energy and that's what the singularity hypothesis is based on. It consisted of everything in this universe we know and love today, including time and space, all contained into a single entity that blew up and is still expanding.

We are still in the infancy of our overall knowledge of time and space and that IS exciting and daunting. Not knowing exactly what happened is OK, but making up fairy tales just because we haven't learned enough about it is pathetic and cowardly.



> The only logical explanation is that, for the
> universe as we know it today to exist, it had to
> have always existed. Which isn't very logical at
> all.

That's not true! For all we know there may be other universes that all belong to some other cosmic anomaly. The term "always" reflects a lack of acceptance of alternative time or assumes time always existed. We know for a fact that time can be bent and even reversed, so who's to say it can't be stopped entirely in certain areas in space while not in others?

When trying to understand the vastness of the cosmos, you cannot just think of time from and Earthly standpoint. One of the reasons many people don't understand or comprehend evolution is because they simply can't think in terms of hundreds of millions of years, because we only live for 80 years (with luck).



> And I say thank God for religion. Our technology
> far surpasses our supposed humanity. Until we
> figure out how to take care of this planet, we
> shouldn't be trying to branch out to others.


Wrong! Only certain individuals are responsible for misrepresenting the human species. The majority of us are decent, semi-intelligent and productive. I believe the human race would be a far more humane species without religion. Look around the world today at all the shit spots and you'll find the common denominator is God.
>
> Otherwise, we are little more than viruses on the
> universal scale. We'll move to consume until
> there's nothing left, because that is what humans
> do.
>

We could be just that if we choose to be, or we could search for ways to harmonize with our planet and hopefully other planets.


> Wouldn't that kind of take the joy out of living?

Absolutely not! It will take the fear and superstition out of living. We're a long way from that point and I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to contemplate what next to do.



> What if they found out that the Gaia Theory is
> actually the correct one, and that we are just
> micro-organisms that make up part of a larger
> life-form?

Suppose we do find out that's true? It'll be great to know and lead to finding out more about the host being. That would be fascinating. I don't understand why knowing how things work scares you so much. What are you afraid of?


> What if they prove without a doubt that there is
> no God, there is no after-life, there is no human
> soul, and that we really are just sacks of meat
> inhabited by symbiotic colonies of bacteria whose
> only purpose is to breed? When individual human
> life is widely regarded as cheap and meaningless,
> there will simply be less guilt about killing
> people, because hey, fuck it, not like it matters
> anyway.

That is so silly I almost chose not to respond, but I'm sleepless and trying to bore myself to sleep at 12:30 am.

As far as I and many others are concerned, we found all that out a long time ago. I don't believe there is a god, afterlife or a soul (as typically used in religious terms) and I don't find life meaningless or cheap at all. In fact, I put forth that religious people find life on Earth far less compelling and can't wait to die and go to Never Never Land. So much so that they're willing to blow themselves and others to smithereens to speed the process.

Atheists understand we have a finite time here and choose to make the best of it and try to understand it. The whole "life won't matter" idea and the "killing spree" notion are juvenile at best.

People were living and getting along on this planet LONG before the 10 commandments. Why, because they had to to maintain a civilization. If there were this anarchist society you fear, mankind would have wiped itself out probably long before we evolved into the homo sapiens.

Did mankind suddenly become more docile after either testament? Hell no, they became more violent and less humane.


> Religion is the perfect tool to control the
> largest amount of people possible, and it very
> well could be the only reason we're still here,
> whether we like it or not.

I think it's more likely to be the reason for the extinction of the human race. The reason we're still here is because science has kept plagues, death and diseases at bay while religions fight over whose god is better.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: September 09, 2009 12:32AM

POST "TOO LONG DIDN'T READ" IN CHAT ROOM ABBREVIATION

LOG OUT

USE ANONYMOUS NAME

POST PICTURE OF OWL SAYING "OH SNAP!"

USE ANOTHER ANONYMOUS NAME

HOTLINK IMAGE OF CLUMSY CAT SAYING "PWNED"

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Noob in Reston ()
Date: September 09, 2009 12:35AM

=
Attachments:
owl-ohsnap.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Mclean Guy ()
Date: September 09, 2009 12:37AM

pwned-37722.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 09, 2009 08:31AM

Numbers, you're falling victim to the same problem I had at one point; I assumed that most people have the capacity for intelligence, empathy, and decency that I and the people I associate with do. I was very, very wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Warhawk ()
Date: September 09, 2009 08:37AM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers, you're falling victim to the same problem
> I had at one point; I assumed that most people
> have the capacity for intelligence, empathy, and
> decency that I and the people I associate with do.
> I was very, very wrong.


Ha ha ha...no shit. Too bad stupidity and douchebaggery isn't fatal.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 09, 2009 09:00AM

Iz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In virtually every case, Ehrman confidently
> explains what the change was, what the earlier
> manuscript actually said, and what motivated the
> copyist.

This isn't exactly honest - Ehrman shows what EARLIER manuscripts said - not what the ORIGINAL manuscript said. You would be begging the question to assume that the earlier manuscripts were not similarly altered.

> This might explain why there are many textual
> critics who are committed Christians with an
> evangelical view of Scripture.

Not at all - it's the 'committed christian' part that explains it.

> We don't have the autograph, or original copy of
> any New Testament document. But then, we don't
> have the autographs of any significant ancient
> writings, such as the works of Aristotle, or
> Plato, or Greek historians such as Thucydides or
> Suetonius.

Right...?

I'm sorry, but the question isn't whether or not there were Christians. The question was about the trustworthiness of the documents. Let's suppose that the works of Aristotle were changed significantly - it wouldn't matter at all in regards to the treatment of the philosophy he subscribes to in those documents, since it's the philosophy itself that is what is important.

The same isn't true for the bible, ergo your comparison fails miserably.

> Furthermore, in the case of those last-mentioned
> authors, the gap between the date of writing and
> the earliest extant copy is quite large - 700 to
> 1300 years (see table here:
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.ht
> ml) - and the number of copies is small (less than
> 100, sometimes less than a dozen (
> http://www.theapologiaproject.org/WHYIBE~1.pdf
> )).
>
> By comparison, the gap between the date of
> authorship of the New Testament manuscripts and
> the earliest extant copy is relatively small -
> about 250 years in the case of the Codex
> Sinaiticus (circa 350 AD) and the Codex Vaticanus
> (same), which are, respectively, complete and
> nearly complete copies of the NT.

This is an argument similar to Josh McDowell and it is equally irrelevant. If we had a million copies of the Illiad, does that mean that the gods actually intervened in the Trojan War?

Ie, number of copies and the time period of the earliest copy are largely irrelevant to whether the documents contain actual history.

> Importantly, significant portions of the New
> Testament are found in much earlier manuscripts,
> such as the Chester Beatty papyri, which dates to
> 200 AD (Pauline epistles), and 250 AD (the Gospels
> and Acts), thus narrowing the gap to some 100-150
> years.

"Significant" meaning scraps. Further, look at the legends that have sprung up about the Bunnyman - and that was within 30 years, in an age of modern technology, no less!

> Indeed, even Ehrman has gone so far as to say: "If
> you're asking are there passages where I am just
> virtually certain we know what the author wrote,
> then the answer is yes. Most passages we're
> pretty sure what the author wrote. We might be
> wrong, so I'd say the certainty is probably at
> 99%. But there are lots and lots of passages like
> that... In many cases, yes of course we know,
> even know pretty much exactly what the text said."
> (Jan. 10, 2006 interview with Bart Ehrman on
> Issues, Etc., hour 3 starting at @ 10:00;
> available for download here:
> http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_01_10_06.htm).

I wasn't aware that anyone made the claim that every passage in the bible was copied wrong. Who made that claim?

I'm going to skip a lot of the Constantine stuff as I don't really disagree.

> Well, that depends on how you define "inerrant"
> for purposes of this theological question. It's
> not something that really interests me and so I
> haven't made a study of it, but I know that among
> those who take the subject of inerrancy seriously,
> many would exclude scribal errors, which most or
> all of Ehrman's objections can at least arguably
> be reduced to.

No, not most or all - that's ridiculous on the face of it, since you can't combine all four gospels to provide a coherent error free reading of what happened after Jesus was crucified (among other contradictory passages).

> On the other hand, perceived or actual
> contradictions in the text - such as the one
> pointed out by Mephisto in his first post - are a
> different matter. All inerrantists would say the
> Bible is without contradiction, and they would
> have different ways of tackling perceived
> contradictions such as the one Mephisto cites.

The tackling of those contradictions would result in mental gymnastics and most likely outright dishonesty - cognitive dissonance.

> Some of the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus'
> existence includes the writings of Pliny,
> Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus, the Talmud,
> second-century Christian texts, and early gnostic
> works such as The Gospel of Thomas.

None of those are contemporaneous, and most of those are about what Christians themselves believed.

> Of course in addition to this, there is the
> witness of the New Testament itself, about which,
> for example, the secular historian Will Durant
> (variously an atheist or agnostic during his adult
> life) had this to say:

The Gospels are not written as a history book, that is obvious. It is written as religious narrative was written back in those days. If you think it is supposed to be history, then explain how we know the 'private' moments of Jesus, of Pontious Pilate, of when he was on the cross and all that. As another example, take the story of "barabbas". There is no history of prisoners being released by Romans on passover. Check it out:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_Barabbas_in_the_bible

"Richard Carrier points out that Barabbas means "son of the father" and says that it is an obvious pun on Christ himself. The Jews chose the wrong "son of the father", one who represents the Old Covenant, as well as the scapegoat (the lamb) sent off, bearing the people's sins into the wilderness, while its twin is sacrificed (Lev. 16:8-10, 23:27-32, Heb. 8-9). "

For better source material, I suggest Carrier's work over the other two.

> Despite the prejudices and theological
> preconceptions of the evangelists, they record
> many incidents that mere inventors would have
> concealed: the competition of the apostles for
> high places in the Kingdom, their flight after
> Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of
> Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references
> of some auditors to his possible insanity, his
> early uncertainty as to his mission, his
> confessions of ignorance as to the future, his
> moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the
> cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the
> reality of the figure behind them.

As Richard Carrier states numerously, the Gospels were about the reversal of expectations. They were about showing the gap between man and the divine - which is why the disciples 'never got it'.

> That a few simple men should in one generation
> have invented so powerful and appealing a
> personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a
> vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle
> far more incredible than any recorded in the
> Gospel.

1. This didn't occur over 'one generation'. There were several decades for this to develop. The stories weren't really unique either (ex. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/preposterous.html#unique)
2. The earliest Christians (ie, Paul's ilk) didn't mention much of Jesus's life at all.
3. Dying and rising savior gods were common, as were Jewish apocalyptic cults.
4. Scientology was invented in less time then Christianity and it's followers feel pretty much the same way about it as you do about Christianity.

In other words, it's completely possible (and sadly common) for this new religion to take root.

> In sum, "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by
> almost all Biblical scholars and classical
> historians."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#
> Jesus_as_a_historical_person

This is true, that most scholars think there was a historical core. Most scholars also believe that we cannot actually know much at all about this historical core due to the massive theological framework, allegory, myth, etc, that has been added to it.

> You're right about faith, and I hear where you're
> coming from. In brief, I think there are sound
> reasons to have faith -- and yet, you certainly
> can't "prove" Christianity like a mathematical
> proof.

What are these reasons?

> But on the other hand, in my view, it's
> not irrational to have faith (some reasons for why
> I think so are touched on above). And too, faith
> is a gift; facts, evidence, human reason (which
> is, I believe, also a gift from God) can provide a
> foundation, but to truly believe, with conviction,
> is a gift of God's grace -- for which you can
> indeed pray, even if it's a conditional prayer,
> i.e., even if you're not particularly sure there's
> a God out there to hear your prayer, you can still
> ask that God - who may or may not exist - to
> reveal himself to you. And I would encourage you
> to make that prayer.

Fair enough - but keep in mind what you consider a gift others consider an oppressive system to denigrate mankind. This, by the way, is not entirely the fault of the religious documents, as it is the unfortunate way of mankind...

> Regarding Paul, it's just my opinion, shared by
> some but certainly not all, that he was a genius.
> I don't put too many people in that category -
> Shakespeare, Mozart, Picasso, a handful of others
> (I'm more interested in the arts than the
> sciences). I trust Paul. That's obviously a
> highly subjective opinion. But he has a living,
> human voice that speaks to me - in the same way
> any great writer speaks to me - a voice that comes
> alive in my mind in an authentic and profound
> way.

Paul was a very smart man. I see him in the same way that I see Mohammad (sp?), L Ron Hubbard, and the like.

> I recall sitting in church in my early 20s, and
> looking at the crucifix above the altar with a
> sad, profound realization that Christianity was a
> myth. I was sad because I knew my loss of faith
> would make my parents sad. But there it was -- I
> knew it was false, a beautiful story, perhaps, but
> just a story, a myth. And yet, I made a
> conditional prayer, to the God whom I really
> wasn't sure existed -- reveal yourself to me, if
> you are out there. If Christianity is not a myth,
> let me see that, let me understand that. The
> response to this prayer: nothing.

I wonder what your opinions of it would have been had you grown up a Hindu.

> But it was much older than that. He tells us that
> he received it when he was converted, which was at
> least fifteen years earlier (see Galatians 1:18,
> 2:1). We are getting back perilously close to the
> resurrection itself if we are forced to place
> Paul's conversion somewhere in the mid-30s AD.

You are begging the question that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a physical resurrection. There are good arguments to suggest that it was a spiritual one.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/friedman1.html

Further, no one doubts that Christianity (or I should say, very few doubt) started somewhere in the 20's-30's. The question regards the historical core.


> There's not much chance for legend and
> embellishment to have crept in here.

Why is this? This sort of legendary development is common in history and can happen quickly. Let's look at another Jewish Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi

He did miracles, claimed to be the messiah, was forced to convert and was still viewed by some rabid followers as the Messiah!

All within his lifetime. He still has followers today, BTW. Check out the Price-Boyd debate: http://www.christianorigins.com/priceboyd.html

"If the apologists are right, then similar figures should be free of legendary development for a good forty years or so. Sabbatai Zevi figured in an apocalyptic fervor in the 1660s. The events are more accessible and documented because they are closer to our era, and thus we know that the "Messiah" renounced Judaism and converted to Islam. According to a tired quote from A. N. Sherwin-White, legend should wait two generations. But in the case of Sabbatai Zevi, thre was a "sudden and almost explosive" growth of miracle stories in a matter of weeks. Fiction far outweighed facts. In December 1665, Zevi commanded fire to appear and walked through fire unaffected. Zevi raised the dead and killed highwaymen with his words.

Moreover, it is not difficult to explain the growth of legends around the figure of Jesus. As Strauss pointed out long ago, the material in the New Testament is based on stories from the Old Testament. Materials were at hand.

Yahuda was made out to be a Messiah. Simon Ninkomba became a living legend against his wishes. He was called "God of the Blacks" but disavowed the role. A 1950s faith healer denied the wild claims made about him. Miracles were attributed to Charles Manson on his bus trip, including that Manson levitated a bus over a creek crag! "

> C.S. Lewis was, initially at least, a most
> reluctant convert to Christianity. A respected
> professor of literature at Oxford, when he became
> convinced of the existence of God in his early
> thirties he began an intensive study of various
> world religions. Of the New Testament he wrote: "I
> was by now too experienced in literary criticism
> to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the
> mythical taste."

Actually I thought the argument from morality is what convinced him of God.

> Admittedly, the historical record is such that it
> doesn't force anyone's hand; again, you can't
> prove Christianity in a mathematical sense. But
> that same historical record is sufficiently
> sturdy, in my opinion, to provide a rational
> foundation for the next step, of faith. My faith
> is centered on my belief in the Resurrection.
> Again, respectfully, I would ask you to consider
> that conditional prayer I mentioned; consider
> making it on your knees, with all due seriousness;
> and too, as a sign of good faith as it were,
> promise that you will put away any behavior which
> is shown or revealed to you, in your conscience,
> is wrong. Such a conditional prayer is not a
> magic formula -- but I do believe in a certain
> dynamic: as you draw closer, or try to draw closer
> to God, he will draw closer to you.

Prayer doesn't work, I've tried.

> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The trouble with this is, of course, why is the
> > character of the Old Testament God (and the NT
> one
> > to some extent) depicted as an entity which
> seems
> > to torment mankind?
> >
> > Why believe any of it?
>
>
> The problem of evil. That's a rather big one, my
> friend.

Not exactly. I'm talking about the Joshua Challenge and the like. You know, God actively tormenting and encouraging the killing of children.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Samuel ()
Date: September 09, 2009 10:39AM

Wow. Did you all notice the date and time of Pangloss's post (i.e., 09/09/09 @ exactly 9:00)?

"Posted by: Professor Pangloss ()"
"Date: September 09, 2009 09:00AM"

I wonder what meaning God has for him/us regarding his/His message.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 09, 2009 10:41AM

Samuel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder what meaning God has for him/us regarding
> his/His message.


It's interesting that you suppose God had an influence on my message....Why not the other big guy?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: September 09, 2009 10:50AM

Samuel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. Did you all notice the date and time of
> Pangloss's post (i.e., 09/09/09 @ exactly 9:00)?
>
> "Posted by: Professor Pangloss ()"
> "Date: September 09, 2009 09:00AM"
>
> I wonder what meaning God has for him/us regarding
> his/His message.

It had to happen to somebody.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Samuel ()
Date: September 09, 2009 10:55AM

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> It's interesting that you suppose God had an
> influence on my message....Why not the other big
> guy?


ha ha. Well, I've never met Mephisto and can't then vouch for his "bigness." Or, perhaps, you were speaking metaphorically. On the other hand, I can't say I see a reason that Mephisto would have an influence on your message.

Or, perhaps, you were referencing something entirely different, perhaps "big guys" Jesus or Santa Claus? Hmmm. Hadn't thought of them at first. I guess I'm more "fearful" of God or something.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: bloody blisters ()
Date: September 09, 2009 10:59AM

definitely has to be be santa claus, he is one scary mother fucker

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Date: September 09, 2009 11:09AM

I was actually referring to Satan....

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Biblical people get hosed ...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: September 09, 2009 05:50PM

God and Satan carpool to work with each other...

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **    **  **     **  ********   ******** 
  **   **    **  **   ***   ***  **     **  **       
   ** **      ****    **** ****  **     **  **       
    ***        **     ** *** **  **     **  ******   
   ** **       **     **     **  **     **  **       
  **   **      **     **     **  **     **  **       
 **     **     **     **     **  ********   ******** 
This forum powered by Phorum.