tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5023598874652656049..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: David Berlinski on Uncommon Knowledgemregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-174962684327770972017-08-20T18:25:54.997-04:002017-08-20T18:25:54.997-04:00Pepe, you have reasoned upside down. Truth is not...Pepe, you have reasoned upside down. Truth is not arrogance; unbelief is.Papers from the Antipodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07520220370793497075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85056009608463417092011-09-19T15:48:55.832-04:002011-09-19T15:48:55.832-04:00bachfiend said...
" I actually get my the...bachfiend said...<br /><br />" I actually get my theology from Bart Ehrman's..."<br /><br />Ah, what a surprise, again. The skeptics among textual critics. <br /><br />"Lower criticism" is generally little better than higher criticism and many of your "teacher's" erroneous views fall to pieces under scrutiny.<br /><br /><i>"Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the New Testament tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong." <br /></i>- Dan Wallace <br /><br />Textual criticism is as laden with problems as any other form.<br /><br />" And I don't expect to roast in hell, because there's no such place"<br /><br />Right. You can tell yourself all about it when you get there.<br /><br />"and also because I've never felt the slightest urge to live what the religious would call an immoral life, besides denying the existence of a god of course."<br /><br />Right, again. I believe you. ;-)<br /><br />Deniers of God's existence have no more brain than deniers of the holocaust. <br /><br />In short, the pattern is clear; <br />You seek out the books, data and opinions you need to reinforce your false sense of security in atheism.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77867917472420383652011-09-19T05:34:09.773-04:002011-09-19T05:34:09.773-04:00Gary,
I actually get my theology from Bart Ehrman...Gary,<br /><br />I actually get my theology from Bart Ehrman's, professor of new testament studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, plus other books, such as 'the Case for God', by Karen Armstrong. <br /><br />And I don't expect to roast in hell, because there's no such place and also because I've never felt the slightest urge to live what the religious would call an immoral life, besides denying the existence of a god of course.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68487840561069191112011-09-19T01:07:23.437-04:002011-09-19T01:07:23.437-04:00bachfiend
You are one royal bore.
Your nonsense d...bachfiend<br /><br />You are one royal bore.<br />Your nonsense driven dogma is pathetic. <br /><br />You pick up all the atheist tripe possible concerning the bible, from your fave web sites no doubt. <br /><br />Whats the real reason for atheism and denial of reality?<br /><br />I'd bet good money that it all comes down to your chief sins and why you seek to sear your own conscience and rid yourself of every thought of accountability.<br /><br />Like the great majority of atheists.<br />Science and reason have absolutely nothing to do with it. Atheists have neither on their side.<br /><br />"Hell and destruction are insatiable"<br />Remember that before you die.<br /><br />"For the anger of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. <br /><br />For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.<br /><br />Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. <br />Bragging of being wise, they became morons ...<br /><br />For this cause, God gave them up to the filthy lusts of their heart, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."<br /><br />Great description of the average atheist and his end.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62621846783499086512011-09-18T21:26:37.937-04:002011-09-18T21:26:37.937-04:00Michael,
Well, the bible isn't one document, ...Michael,<br /><br />Well, the bible isn't one document, it's a collection of books, the authorship of which is unknown, copied many times down the years, translated may times, had bits added here and there, like the ending of Mark and the story in John about the adulteress and 'he who is without sin ...'. Your assertion that the gospels were written by the people said to have written them is on very shaky grounds based on wishful thinking.<br /><br />Evolutionary biology is much better supported, I'd say with almost 100% certainty, because the evidence comes from multiple disciplines, such as genetics, geographical distribution of species etc.<br /><br />Claiming that your version of how the bible originated is the true one is nonsensical because the proponents of the winning dogma preserved the accepted gospels and also the commentary on the history too. The losers in the dogma wars, the 'heretics', didn't get to preserve their gospels and to have their arguments preserved. What we know about the heretics we know only from the criticism of their enemies.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27674667757073583192011-09-18T20:23:57.445-04:002011-09-18T20:23:57.445-04:00@bach:
[Because it's only a hypothesis, not w...@bach:<br /><br />[Because it's only a hypothesis, not with the strong evidentiary support of a theory, as in Darwin's theory of descent with modification?]<br /> <br />Authorship of a 2000 year old document is is a different kind of question than a scientific theory. The traditional view of gospel authorship and dating fits the evidence nicely, and I see no reason to question it. I think that many of the questions raised about it are ideologically driven-- to reduce the credibility of the record. <br /><br />As regards Darwin's theory, I have no quarrel with descent with modification. The theory of common descent is obviously a real non-trivial theory, quite possibly true, although I think that the evidence supporting it is exaggerated by Darwinists. Modification obviously happens, and speciation (although rarely observed) is also a reasonable hypothesis. I don't hold to a theory of separate creation, although that is one plausible interpretation of the fossil record. <br /><br />As I've noted repeatedly, I believe that natural selection is tautological, or at best banal, depending on how its stated. Nothing in evolutionary data supports atheism or materialism. <br /><br />[You aren't very critical in certain areas, as in Thomistic dualism,]<br /><br />Thomistic dualism, like all theories of the mind, has its problems, but I believe that it is the best solution yet proposed. Much of its strength is the incredible weakness of the competing theories- materialist and Cartesian dualist. <br /><br />[You need to get a consistent degree of questioning and be prepared to doubt or at least question everything]<br /><br />I think that I am rather skeptical of quite a few things-- a lot of people are rather upset with me because of my skepticism about atheism and Darwinism. I used to be quite skeptical of Christianity, but I have come to believe that it is the truth.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88049766469323679652011-09-18T18:34:57.368-04:002011-09-18T18:34:57.368-04:00Michael,
'Why fight the obvious?'
Becaus...Michael,<br /><br />'Why fight the obvious?'<br /><br />Because it isn't obvious? Because there are better explanation? Because the two gospel hypothesis doesn't work? Because it's only a hypothesis, not with the strong evidentiary support of a theory, as in Darwin's theory of descent with modification? Because the victors in a war of dogma get to write the history and preserve he accepted dogma by repeated copying through the years, writing over other texts to produce palimpses? Because it isn't sane to accept the word of 'authority' without question, let alone one's you can't vouch for? If the chairman of your department comes up with a new neurosurgical procedure, you wouldn't accept until you've examined it carefully.<br /><br />You aren't very critical in certain areas, as in Thomistic dualism, but overly critical in others, as in evolutionary biology. You need to get a consistent degree of questioning and be prepared to doubt or at least question everything.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8833157745419972892011-09-18T17:48:02.533-04:002011-09-18T17:48:02.533-04:00@bach:
[The idea that Luke was the author of '...@bach:<br /><br />[The idea that Luke was the author of 'Luke' and 'Acts' is only a supposition based on the idea that the two books were written by the same author...]<br /><br />There are many early sources that attribute it to Luke, Paul's companion. There have been no other attributions that I know of. Why do you doubt all of the evidence? It's like asserting that Julius Caesar didn't write Gallic Wars. Why deny the obvious, unless your goal is to cast doubt on the NT indiscriminately? <br /><br />[The supposition that Paul had epilepsy is unproven.]<br /><br />Enough said.<br /><br />All of your fact-free speculation about the first century and gospel authorship is pointless, unless your purpose is to trash the NT.<br /><br />Any sane opinion agrees with the traditional authorships, and the two gospel hypothesis explains most things quite well, and it attested by a number of very early sources. <br /><br />Why fight the obvious?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54332390610888026982011-09-18T17:10:30.739-04:002011-09-18T17:10:30.739-04:00Michael,
The idea that Luke was the author of ...Michael,<br /><br />The idea that Luke was the author of 'Luke' and 'Acts' is only a supposition based on the idea that the two books were written by the same author and 'Luke' is the most gentile orientated gospel of the 4. Of the Gentiles accompanying Paul, Luke would appear to fit the bill the best.<br /><br />But again, the author doesn't identify himself as Luke, and the supposition is only because the personal case thanges from 3rd person to 1st person in one section indicating a participant in the events.<br /><br />The supposition that Paul had epilepsy is unproven. The comment that the EEG has gone missing is ... Well, the nature of epilepsy until very recently was unknown, and most illnesses around that time were thought to have supernatural causes.<br /><br />The idea that Matthew was the first gospel and most accurate, based on eyewitness accounts, so everything described in it must have happened, otherwise other witnesses would have disputed it doesn't work.<br /><br />A Matthew written in Hebrew has the same problem as the hypothetical Q source. There's no copy of it existing.<br />Christianity wasn't a runaway success early on, attracting mainly the disadvantaged.<br />Literacy in 1st century Palestine was very low, less than 1% of the population. In the early Christians, it would have been less.<br />Copies of a Hebrew Matthew would have to be laboriously written out by hand, so the number of copies would have been very small, and the very small number of Christian converts who would have had access to a copy would have been very low.<br />So, the number of early Christians who were in Jerusalem at the time and in a position to know what happened, literate, had access to a Hebrew Matthew and read it, to know whether it was accurate or not would have been extremely low.<br />So if there was a Hebrew Matthew and it was inaccurate, what would a disappointed literate early Christian convert do? Write a refutation? Being able to read doesn't mean a person was also able to write too. We teach both reading and writing, but they are different skills. A written refutation would have to be preserved and copied multiple times over the years to reach us though.<br />Or would the disappointed convert just drop out of the religion?<br /><br />A Hebrew Matthew, if it existed, would only have been circulated in Christian cycles, and wouldn't be seen by historians.<br /><br />I think the the usual account that all the gospels were written decades after the events is correct.<br /><br />Why would the early Christians be writing accounts early on? John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul were all predicting that the end of days was going to happen very soon. To the early Christians, the urgency was to get the word out quickly, by word of mouth. The early Christians would have been telling each other stories and adding explanation to put everything into context. And then decades later, people decided that they'd better write down what they remembered of the stories, which inevitably had errors, exaggerations, elements from other stories ... And the gospels differ in their details.<br /><br />Ist century Roman empire didn't have mass media or the Internet. The common people would have had a reasonable idea what was happening in their vicinity, but little idea about events 10 miles away. Without records, they would have had very little idea what happened 30 years ago and far away.<br /><br />Quick, what happened in Vietnam in January 1968. Unless you're literate, with access to the records and thinking about it, if you were in the 1st century you'd have absolutely no idea about remote events, in time and space.<br /><br />And the dramatic events in Matthew should have been recorded in the secular accounts of the time, let alone in the other gospels. They aren't of the same nature as the question whether there were 2, 3 or 4 shots at the assassination of JFK.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80816570415604714642011-09-18T08:08:14.268-04:002011-09-18T08:08:14.268-04:00@bach:
[Paul had an epileptic fit.]
A little har...@bach:<br /><br />[Paul had an epileptic fit.]<br /><br />A little hard to diagnose after 2000 years. The video EEG is lost to history. Nice story, though. <br /><br />Also, a beautiful example of the genetic fallacy.<br /><br />[I agree that whoever wrote Luke and acts was writing literature.]<br /><br />Luke wrote about epileptics, and was a physician. He didn't notice that his mentor Paul was an epileptic. Odd.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56452928704662587562011-09-18T08:01:29.985-04:002011-09-18T08:01:29.985-04:00@bach:
[there are no historical accounts of them ...@bach:<br /><br />[there are no historical accounts of them happening. And there should have been, they were pretty dramatic events... there would not have been countless people reading Matthew...who would have had the slightest idea what happened in Jerusalem years earlier, let alone what happened 10 miles away from their homes]<br /><br />One or the other, bach. Not both. Either we expect abundant records of events, or the rubes were clueless.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4449415087328168722011-09-17T22:49:16.290-04:002011-09-17T22:49:16.290-04:00Michael,
Paul had an epileptic fit. I agree that...Michael,<br /><br />Paul had an epileptic fit. I agree that whoever wrote Luke and acts was writing literature.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86995412794936820872011-09-17T22:46:38.681-04:002011-09-17T22:46:38.681-04:00Michael,
It's not that there are 1st century ...Michael,<br /><br />It's not that there are 1st century accounts disputing the solar eclipse, the earthquake and the plague of zombies. It's that there are no historical accounts of them happening. And there should have been, they were pretty dramatic events.<br /><br />Mark if he was reporting what Peter said wasn't an eyewitness.<br /><br />And literacy wasn't high in the first century, there would not have been countless people reading Matthew, which had to be copied by hand, who would have had the slightest idea what happened in Jerusalem years earlier, let alone what happened 10 miles away from their homes.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56935416254791264932011-09-17T22:39:20.930-04:002011-09-17T22:39:20.930-04:00@bach:
[Neither Luke nor Paul were eyewitnesses, ...@bach:<br /><br />[Neither Luke nor Paul were eyewitnesses, so they weren't staggered by the events they were describing.]<br /><br />Paul wasn't staggered? He was knocked to the ground and blinded, for goodness sake! His experience on the Damascus road is the paradigm for a radical transformation. <br /><br />Luke was a good historian, and Paul's faithful companion, who "having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you," <br /><br />His account-- the infancy narratives and the prodigal son are prime examples-- is some of the most beautiful literature (and history) penned by man.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31227708957606030912011-09-17T22:27:18.350-04:002011-09-17T22:27:18.350-04:00@bach:
The most reasonable understanding is the o...@bach:<br /><br />The most reasonable understanding is the one that was asserted by virtually all of the ancients: Matthew and John were written by apostles who were eyewitnesses. Mark is essentially an eyewitness account, as it is Marks's notes on Peter's preaching. Luke was written as an account for gentiles, using eyewitness sources. All were composed before the fall of Jerusalem, although John 21 was probably added by a disciple of John's after his death.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48773678150629597452011-09-17T22:20:13.706-04:002011-09-17T22:20:13.706-04:00@bach:
Regarding the earthquake and the resurrect...@bach:<br /><br />Regarding the earthquake and the resurrection of the dead saints, could you quote me the sources from the latter half of the first century who disputed Matthew's observation. <br /><br />His gospel was undoubtedly very popular, and whether or not it was written in Jerusalem, there were countless people who read it who would have known about major events in Jerusalem at the time.<br /><br />Can you quote a source from that time that shares your view that Matthew lied about the earthquake?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66958902328891037842011-09-17T22:19:56.514-04:002011-09-17T22:19:56.514-04:00Michael,
The two gospel hypothesis ( and it's...Michael,<br /><br />The two gospel hypothesis ( and it's strange that it's a hypothesis, not a theory as in Darwin's well supported theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection ... Yeah, I know, red flag to a bull, I enjoy pulling your chain ...) postulates the earliest most reliable account (Matthew) was written by a disciple, an eyewitness in Hebrew for the Jews, and Luke took it and wrote one for the Gentiles, and changed the stories of the birth of Jesus and left out details of the crucifixion). <br /><br />Neither Luke nor Paul were eyewitnesses, so they weren't staggered by the events they were describing. Mark wasn't an eyewitness either, traditionally he was a secretary of Peter reporting what he heard Peter say.<br /><br />So by your version, Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and any difference is due to the differing perspectives of eyewitnesses. Luke and Mark are derived from Matthew and the authors edited the eyewitness account ... Is that your position? Just to rescue the idea that the trinity is true, whereas other early Christian sects had other theologies including god being single.<br /><br />I think my explanation that the 4 gospels were written independently in different places after decades of oral tradition of early Christians retelling the stories is more plausible.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44064171803052151832011-09-17T22:14:55.591-04:002011-09-17T22:14:55.591-04:00@bach:
[You have the hypothesis that the solar ec...@bach:<br /><br />[You have the hypothesis that the solar eclipse, the earthquake and the resurrection of the dead saints actually happened because you insist that Matthew was written contemporaneous. I assert that it was written 40 years later, in Greek, outside Palestine,]<br /><br />I believe that the Griesbach hypothesis (also Farmer hypothesis http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm, which is similar) is the best way to explain Gospel authorship and date. It eliminates the need for Q.<br /><br />Matthean priority has a long and ancient history. It was the view of all of the early church historians, from the 2nd to the 4th century. Origen, Papias, Irnaes, Eusebius, Epiphanius all attested to it, and it should be noted that 2nd century sources probably had contact with eyewitnesses of the apostles. Augustine asserted Matthean priority as well.<br /><br />The consistent project of higher criticism has been to remove the authorship and dates of the gospels further and further from Christ, with the obvious intent of diminishing their credibility. <br /><br />It is a shameful perversion of scholarship. <br /><br />I've never understood how a 'scholar' living 2000 years after an event can casually discard the testimony of people who lived within a couple of generations or less of an event. <br /><br />Only ideology explains it. Shameful.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23277770043220737812011-09-17T21:54:06.195-04:002011-09-17T21:54:06.195-04:00@oleg:
[The less consistent the story, the more c...@oleg:<br /><br />[The less consistent the story, the more compelling it is. That's an interesting take.]<br /><br />The truth is in between. The police know this, when they interrogate witnesses/suspects separately. <br /><br />If the stories are exactly the same, down to the fine details, there is reason to think that the stories are concocted and memorized. Fake stories that are rehearsed are like myths- clean, utterly consistent, story-like with all of the messy stuff worked out. <br /><br />Obviously, complete lies can be inconsistent in major ways if the conspirators haven't gotten together to synchronize their stories. <br /><br />Witnesses to astonishing events tend to maintain a clear core of truth, but often misremember or misinterpret aspects of the event. Again, JFK's assassination is a good example. <br /><br />Interrogators are trained to suspect huge inconsistencies, as well as utter consistency, as signs of lying. <br /><br />Honest people telling a true story about a profound event tell a core of consistent truth with a penumbra of confusions. <br /><br />The Gospels have the hallmarks of true events told by honest (and fallible people).<br /><br />Gary Wills said it best (paraphrasing)-- 'The Christian story in the NT looks most like a bunch of ordinary people staggered from an astonishing event that they are trying to make sense of."mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82914339545545937932011-09-17T21:00:41.717-04:002011-09-17T21:00:41.717-04:00I got to stop commenting using an iPad. It should...I got to stop commenting using an iPad. It should have read 'I call it (Matthew) a misattributed book'. I still don't know how the spell check turned misattributed into Midas robed!bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36549704859317951032011-09-17T20:57:55.071-04:002011-09-17T20:57:55.071-04:00Michael,
What is the evidence that a Jew of the f...Michael,<br /><br />What is the evidence that a Jew of the first century speaking Aramaic would have been familiar with the Greek translation of the OT?<br /><br />You have the hypothesis that the solar eclipse, the earthquake and the resurrection of the dead saints actually happened because you insist that Matthew was written contemporaneous. I assert that it was written 40 years later, in Greek, outside Palestine, and the author didn't expect it to be compared to what actually happened. I also didn't call it a forgery. I called it a Midas robed book. I said that it was written after a long period of stories being passed orally from person to person before being finally being written down by an unknown author, who didn't identify himself.<br /><br />You're being overly defensive in thinking that I called it a forgery. Why are you so sensitive?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53951514993107540872011-09-17T20:46:43.977-04:002011-09-17T20:46:43.977-04:00Egnor: Differences in accounts strengthen their cr...Egnor: <i>Differences in accounts strengthen their credibility, rather than diminish it. Differences in accounts of historic events are the rule: look at all of the differences in accounts of witnesses to the assassination of JFK. Some heard 3 shots, some 2, some 4...<br /><br />If there weren't differences, that would be suspicious, because it would suggest that there was a conspiracy or myth-making going on. Liars get together to concoct a story. Witnesses to astonishing events tell what they think they saw, and it is usually not entirely consistent with other witnesses...<br /><br />The variety of endings speaks to the veracity of the text-- people inventing a story out of whole cloth would have made sure to be consistent and complete...<br /><br />If it was a fraud, the accounts would have been reconciled. </i> <br /><br />The less consistent the story, the more compelling it is. That's an interesting take.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44775330569228101002011-09-17T20:44:36.930-04:002011-09-17T20:44:36.930-04:00Dr. Egnor, I'm very pleased to see that you...Dr. Egnor, I'm very pleased to see that you're very informed as to biblical sources, controversies and such as well as in philosophy and science.<br /><br />Contrary to your critics, who in general do not have a bloody clue on anything much. <br /><br />Where did you find time for it all?!<br /><br />Your critics are usually sciolists, deceiving and being deceived, like these ignorant atheist nincompoops posting here.<br /><br />They love to fool both themselves and the unwary ignorant.<br /><br />The great archaeologist, Nelson Glueck said, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."<br /><br />No other book in all of history has received so much vehement persecution, hatred, multiplied 1000's of attempts to destroy it both physically and evidentially. <br /><br />Yet, no other MSS is history is so well supported by so many experts in the fields of archaeology and history.<br /><br />No other book in history is so loved and so hated. Atheists seriously need to ask themselves why?<br /><br /><i>"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.<br /><br />That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.<br /><br />As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see."</i><br />- Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University, March 9, 1790Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14263063605832045292011-09-17T19:00:30.127-04:002011-09-17T19:00:30.127-04:00(continued)
[In addition to a number of other go...(continued)<br /><br /><br />[In addition to a number of other gospels ascribed to such authors as Peter and Thomas, which were rejected from the canon.]<br /><br />They were, and are, obvious frauds.<br /><br />[I have an agenda. I'm fascinated by the history of the early church.]<br /><br />Odd. Maybe there's hope.<br /><br />[You have an agenda too. You want the gospels to have been written by the people they were ascribed to to confirm your beliefs.]<br /><br />I believe the Gospel is true, for many many reasons. I am quite satisfied with the evidence for the historical truth of the gospels. Much of modern higher criticism is ideologically-driven misrepresentations of scholarship.<br /><br />[You still haven't explained why Matthew if he wrote it first in Jerusalem in Hebrew included a solar eclipse and an earthquake at the time of Jesus' death with the tombs of saints being opened up and the resurrected saints appearing to many in Jerusalem, despite such remarkable events not being recorded in any contemporary historical account.]<br /><br />A forger wouldn't have written about so many things that could be checked so easily by his contemporaries. <br /><br />Secular records of earthquakes (Matthew) and massacres (Herod) etc from two thousand years ago are quite incomplete, to say the least. As archeological finds accumulate, the essential accuracy of the NT as a historical document is increasingly confirmed.<br /><br />[There is a forgery from several centuries later, the gospel and acts of Pontius Pilate, which has the earthquake felt in Rome and the emperor summoning Pilate to Rome where he's put on trial and executed, before he goes back to Jerusalem to live for another 10 years.]<br /><br />A forgery, as distinguished from the NT, which is not a forgery.<br /><br />[The accounts certainly don't seem figurative, they didn't to the early Christians and you wouldn't be putting fictional events in a supposed history. If Matthew was first, then the other gospels should have followed its account. They don't.]<br /><br />If it was a fraud, the accounts would have been reconciled. Real accounts (JFK assassination) diverge enormously, around a true event.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-35036550785626350822011-09-17T19:00:08.100-04:002011-09-17T19:00:08.100-04:00(continued)
[It's also odd that Paul would h...(continued)<br /><br /><br />[It's also odd that Paul would have had Luke rewrite Matthew for the Gentiles and change so many of the details (Paul and Luke didn't know Jesus, so Luke's account according to this hypothesis has to have been based on a Hebrew Matthew). It's also odd that Mark writing down Peter's confirmation of Matthew wrote such a short text, leaving out much of the stories and abruptly ending with the empty tomb, to be completed later by scribes adding other text.]<br /><br />The ending of Mark is a mystery, for which there are many hypotheses. The variety of endings speaks to the veracity of the text-- people inventing a story out of whole cloth would have made sure to be consistent and complete. <br /><br />[I subscribe to the view that there was an oral tradition for 30 years, then Mark was written, followed by Luke and Matthew independently of each other, followed by John towards the end of the first century.]<br /><br />There are very good reasons to date major parts of John in the 40's, before the fall of Jerusalem in 70. There is an intimate knowledge of Judean geography and custom, and a complete lack of knowledge of the Roman suppression. In addition , John 5:2: <br /><br />"Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades."<br /><br />The pool didn't exist after 70, yet John wrote of it in the present tense, implicitly challenging readers to go see it for themselves. When John wrote, it hadn't yet been destroyed.<br /><br />John A.T. Robinson, a liberal biblical scholar, has dated the core of John to the 40's<br /><br />Luke's Acts was obviously written before Paul's death (ca 64) and the fall of Jerusalem (68-70). That means that Luke's gospel was written even earlier, and Luke's sources (Mark and Matthew) were written even earlier. <br /><br />The date of the autographs and the massive quantity of very early manuscripts is very well established, and is more impressive than any ancient documents. Many of the greek and roman secular texts that we have date from a thousand years or more after the autographs. <br /><br />The NT is unquestionably the best documented and sourced group of ancient texts that we have. <br /><br />(continued)mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com