Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, but without the original documents we cannot know what they said.

We have copies after copies that say the same thing. We have Church leaders saying the same things found in the NT. Why do you think the originals would be different?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We have copies after copies that say the same thing. We have Church leaders saying the same things found in the NT. Why do you think the originals would be different?

I don't know if they would be different. The writing have been altered over time (ending of Mark for example) so how do we know they were not altered from the originals?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Very true. Do you equally doubt the copies of Pliny the Elder?

Did you mean Pliny the younger? His writings only indicate that there were people named Christians who sang to a god named Christos around 112. Jesus name was never mentioned or that he walked the earth and was resurrected.

Your claim is that due to not having the original writings of the authors of the New Testament it disqualifies them as witnesses. Yet it is agreed by Historians that the authors wrote within their lifetimes giving valid reasons to claim this. What evidence do you have that would support your claim?

I am not claiming they are disqualified as evidence. I am saying that the writings have been changed over time so we cannot know what they actually said. Also, if even if what we have in the bible is accurate that does not provide sufficient evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

So you believe that the universe is intelligent?

No. I was just hypothesizing that maybe the laws of logic are an emergent property or that they just must be in this universe. I do not know why the laws of logic exist, I can demonstrate that they do exist and are the most useful way to determine truth.

Should Jesus be who He claims to be, would it be supernatural for those miracles to occur?

Depends on how the miracles were performed. If Jesus explained that there was a natural process he used that we can discover and test then no. If he just said he did them with no process or any ability to be tested then I would say yes.

That is not being said, it says that you were a Christian and fell away from being a Christian. Very logical.

Ok. But the verse you quoted said they fall away die to persecution or trouble. That does not apply to me. I lost my faith due to more education and study.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know if they would be different. The writing have been altered over time (ending of Mark for example) so how do we know they were not altered from the originals?

Like I said, other sources confirm much of the original material of the Bible. Your example of Mark for instance is not in the manuscripts available to the Church fathers (in Greek) in the 4th century but Justin Martyr and Tatian both seemed to be aware of Mark's longer ending as early as the second century. There is a quotation by Irenaeus around about 180 coming from the longer version. So it seems that the "addition" may have come first.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you mean Pliny the younger? His writings only indicate that there were people named Christians who sang to a god named Christos around 112. Jesus name was never mentioned or that he walked the earth and was resurrected.

No, Pliny the Elder.

Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24–79), called Pliny the Elder (/ˈplɪni/), was a Roman author, a naturalist and natural philosopher, a naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire, and a friend of emperor Vespasian. He wrote the encyclopedic Naturalis Historia (Natural History), which became an editorial model for encyclopedias. He spent most of his spare time studying, writing, and investigating natural and geographic phenomena in the field.
His son was Pliny the younger.

I am not claiming they are disqualified as evidence. I am saying that the writings have been changed over time so we cannot know what they actually said. Also, if even if what we have in the bible is accurate that does not provide sufficient evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

So we have Jesus who claimed to be God and was crucified and the disciples in hiding and denying even knowing Christ, who then after the acclaimed resurrection coming out in boldness and defiance to spread the gospel. Not evidence but if one takes human nature into account this seems more in line with a truth being told than not. IMHO.

No. I was just hypothesizing that maybe the laws of logic are an emergent property or that they just must be in this universe. I do not know why the laws of logic exist, I can demonstrate that they do exist and are the most useful way to determine truth.

The laws of Logic are not how things behave, but are of the mind. It stands to reason that laws concerning mind and logic are of the mind and are not physical in nature. It seems to me that it would be of great importance when determining whether or not God does indeed exist, that one would consider something so essential to human existence as the mind and the Laws that allow us to intelligently discern the world around us.

Depends on how the miracles were performed. If Jesus explained that there was a natural process he used that we can discover and test then no. If he just said he did them with no process or any ability to be tested then I would say yes.

Does knowing something has a natural process and can be tested determine its supernatural-ness? What if those miracles were a result of timelessness or perhaps other dimensional reality?

Ok. But the verse you quoted said they fall away die to persecution or trouble. That does not apply to me. I lost my faith due to more education and study.

So you said. However, nothing in your post about you losing your faith really said anything about what in your education and study led to your loss of faith. Considering what you have posted, and that is really all I have to go on, you studied atheist argumentation as most of your arguments seem to be intiated from that school of thought.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Like I said, other sources confirm much of the original material of the Bible. Your example of Mark for instance is not in the manuscripts available to the Church fathers (in Greek) in the 4th century but Justin Martyr and Tatian both seemed to be aware of Mark's longer ending as early as the second century. There is a quotation by Irenaeus around about 180 coming from the longer version. So it seems that the "addition" may have come first.

I disagree with you here that we can know that it was written before the 4th century. But, even if I grant you this the text was still changed in some if the manuscripts.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, Pliny the Elder.

Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24–79), called Pliny the Elder (/ˈplɪni/), was a Roman author, a naturalist and natural philosopher, a naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire, and a friend of emperor Vespasian. He wrote the encyclopedic Naturalis Historia (Natural History), which became an editorial model for encyclopedias. He spent most of his spare time studying, writing, and investigating natural and geographic phenomena in the field.
His son was Pliny the younger.

What did he write?

So we have Jesus who claimed to be God and was crucified and the disciples in hiding and denying even knowing Christ, who then after the acclaimed resurrection coming out in boldness and defiance to spread the gospel. Not evidence but if one takes human nature into account this seems more in line with a truth being told than not. IMHO.

The only reason we know this story is becasue of they are in the gospels. There is no way to show that the supernatural events took place.

The laws of Logic are not how things behave, but are of the mind. It stands to reason that laws concerning mind and logic are of the mind and are not physical in nature. It seems to me that it would be of great importance when determining whether or not God does indeed exist, that one would consider something so essential to human existence as the mind and the Laws that allow us to intelligently discern the world around us. Does knowing something has a natural process and can be tested determine its supernatural-ness? What if those miracles were a result of timelessness or perhaps other dimensional reality?

I never said they were physical things. The laws of logic work in this universe, they don't have to work bu they are a property of this universe. If there are other universes they don't have to work.

If miracles have a natural or unnatural cause I really don't care. I care about if they happened or not.

So you said. However, nothing in your post about you losing your faith really said anything about what in your education and study led to your loss of faith. Considering what you have posted, and that is really all I have to go on, you studied atheist argumentation as most of your arguments seem to be intiated from that school of thought.

It is not an atheist school of thought. That does not exist, it is from a humanist and skeptical school of thought.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree with you here that we can know that it was written before the 4th century. But, even if I grant you this the text was still changed in some if the manuscripts.

Not necessarily, that was my point. If it was quoted around 180, it had to be before that. It is rather obvious. The possibility of it being original and condensed afterward explains why it would be in the earlier quote and not later. So we have nothing to say that it was original but we also have nothing to show it wasn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What did he write?

The Natural History (Latin: Naturalis Historia) is a work by Pliny the Elder. It is one of the largest single works to have survived from the Roman Empire to the modern day and purports to cover all ancient knowledge. The work's subject area is thus not limited to what is today understood by natural history; Pliny himself defines his scope as "the natural world, or life".[2] It is encyclopedic in scope, but its structure is not like that of a modern encyclopedia. It is the only work by Pliny to have survived, and the last that he published. He published the first 10 books in AD 77, but had not made a final revision of the remainder at the time of his death during the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. The rest was published posthumously by Pliny's nephew, Pliny the Younger.

The work is divided into 37 books, organised into ten volumes. These cover topics including astronomy, mathematics, geography, ethnography, anthropology, human physiology, zoology, botany, agriculture, horticulture, pharmacology, mining, mineralogy, sculpture, painting, and precious stones.

Pliny's Natural History became a model for later encyclopedias and scholarly works as a result of its breadth of subject matter, its referencing of original authors, and its index. Natural History (Pliny) - Wikipedia

The only reason we know this story is becasue of they are in the gospels. There is no way to show that the supernatural events took place.

We know that during the time Jesus was crucified that there was an earthquake and darkness, both of which are recorded outside of the Bible.

I never said they were physical things. The laws of logic work in this universe, they don't have to work bu they are a property of this universe. If there are other universes they don't have to work.

Actually, the Laws of Logic must exist universally, any time, any where and for all. They don't depend upon this universe as they apply to any universe should it exist.

If miracles have a natural or unnatural cause I really don't care. I care about if they happened or not.

And well you should.

It is not an atheist school of thought. That does not exist, it is from a humanist and skeptical school of thought.

What is atheist thought if not humanist and skepticism exists in Theism as well.[/Quote]

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not necessarily, that was my point. If it was quoted around 180, it had to be before that. It is rather obvious. The possibility of it being original and condensed afterward explains why it would be in the earlier quote and not later. So we have nothing to say that it was original but we also have nothing to show it wasn't.

Well you are in disagreement with the majority of scholars on the subject. I cannot find any theologians or scholars christian or not that think this ending was in the originals. John McArthur says that we should not determine any doctrine from these verses alone. Even if they were in the originals the history of Mark still shows different versions. There are three different endings to the book. Why would God let this confusion stand?

You say we have nothing to say that it was original so why believe it was? I am not saying it was not original but I am not convinced by the evidence that it was.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The Natural History (Latin: Naturalis Historia) is a work by Pliny the Elder. It is one of the largest single works to have survived from the Roman Empire to the modern day and purports to cover all ancient knowledge. The work's subject area is thus not limited to what is today understood by natural history; Pliny himself defines his scope as "the natural world, or life".[2] It is encyclopedic in scope, but its structure is not like that of a modern encyclopedia. It is the only work by Pliny to have survived, and the last that he published. He published the first 10 books in AD 77, but had not made a final revision of the remainder at the time of his death during the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. The rest was published posthumously by Pliny's nephew, Pliny the Younger.

The work is divided into 37 books, organised into ten volumes. These cover topics including astronomy, mathematics, geography, ethnography, anthropology, human physiology, zoology, botany, agriculture, horticulture, pharmacology, mining, mineralogy, sculpture, painting, and precious stones.

Pliny's Natural History became a model for later encyclopedias and scholarly works as a result of its breadth of subject matter, its referencing of original authors, and its index. Natural History (Pliny) - Wikipedia

I know who he was I want to know why do you bring him up? What did he write about Jesus and Christians?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well you are in disagreement with the majority of scholars on the subject. I cannot find any theologians or scholars christian or not that think this ending was in the originals. John McArthur says that we should not determine any doctrine from these verses alone. Even if they were in the originals the history of Mark still shows different versions. There are three different endings to the book. Why would God let this confusion stand?

You say we have nothing to say that it was original so why believe it was? I am not saying it was not original but I am not convinced by the evidence that it was.

Right, I said, there is nothing that shows it was original but nothing to show it isn't. Why God would allow this confusion, another point towards faith. This might be one of those points that might be a choice.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know who he was I want to know why do you bring him up? What did he write about Jesus and Christians?

No, it goes to show how secular history is not in doubt even if large amounts of time between events and the written accounts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree with you here that we can know that it was written before the 4th century. But, even if I grant you this the text was still changed in some if the manuscripts.

I was thinking about this, I just gave you information on there being a quote from 180 and yet you say you disagree; why would you disagree it was written earlier?

This might be interesting to you as well:
www.kjvtoday.com/home/should-the-longer-ending-of-mark-mark-169-20-be-in-the-bible

Also, I was wondering why you hadn't posted to my other response?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well you are in disagreement with the majority of scholars on the subject. I cannot find any theologians or scholars christian or not that think this ending was in the originals. John McArthur says that we should not determine any doctrine from these verses alone. Even if they were in the originals the history of Mark still shows different versions. There are three different endings to the book. Why would God let this confusion stand?

Probably for the same reason He spoke in Parables to the masses ... ...which, ironically, doesn't impute that God is a God of confusion, but rather one who is Sovereign. But I suppose God's Sovereignty could, on a practical level, lead to confusion for those who don't want to cooperate with God in embracing the way in which He's chosen to parcel out His gospel message to the World.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Right, I said, there is nothing that shows it was original but nothing to show it isn't. Why God would allow this confusion, another point towards faith. This might be one of those points that might be a choice.

It is not good evidence to say that because someone cannot give evidence against a claim is evidence for the claim. So not knowing what the originals said is somehow evidence toward faith?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, it goes to show how secular history is not in doubt even if large amounts of time between events and the written accounts.

Does he describe supernatural events? Also, some of his writings can be verified by other means as well. The difference is that the gospels describe extraordinary events that require better evidence than mundane historical events.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I was thinking about this, I just gave you information on there being a quote from 180 and yet you say you disagree; why would you disagree it was written earlier?

What did Irenaeus write about it?

This might be interesting to you as well:
www.kjvtoday.com/home/should-the-longer-ending-of-mark-mark-169-20-be-in-the-bible

I have read arguments on both sides but the real answer seems to be I don't know who wrote it and when.

Also, I was wondering why you hadn't posted to my other response?

I think I have but I will go back and look.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Does he describe supernatural events? Also, some of his writings can be verified by other means as well. The difference is that the gospels describe extraordinary events that require better evidence than mundane historical events.

I would further argue that since I have no evidence of the supernatural, that testimonies of the supernatural are automatically suspect. That is to say, first show me the supernatural and then we can discuss whether some particular supernatural event occurred. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then it doesn't matter how reliable some text is; the supernatural claims are false.

 

[SPF]

I would further argue that since I have no evidence of the supernatural, that testimonies of the supernatural are automatically suspect. That is to say, first show me the supernatural and then we can discuss whether some particular supernatural event occurred. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then it doesn't matter how reliable some text is; the supernatural claims are false.

What would you consider as evidence?