• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

madaz

dyslexic agnostic insomniac
Mar 14, 2012
1,408
26
Gold Coast Australia
✟24,455.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do Biblical Scholars agree on anything?
Yes, first of all the majority of biblical scholars agree that John was written in the mid to late first century.

Secondly, the majority of biblical scholars agree that John was the last of the four gospels.

Thirdly, the majority of biblical scholars agree that John is the least reliable.

Fourthly, the majority of biblical scholars agree that John was not written by John.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Yes, you do have biblical scholars that believe just about anything. Some believe all four gospels were written by the authors stated, some claim they are all historical and some come up with different dates of authorship based on little tid bits that fit an agenda.

Then, you have scholars/historians that believe Jesus never existed, the NT is 100% made up etc. etc..

It should also be noted, that the vast majority of scholars are not exactly unbiased, as they are a high percentage of conservative christian scholars, many of whom earn a paycheck from a theological institution.

That fact is, the consensus amongst scholars, is John was written last amongst the 4 gospels.

Frankly I've also seen those same folks arguing about the extremely low literacy rates of Jews of that era without respect to Jewish religious traditions and customs too. I'm not all that impressed by anything I've read with respect to the origins of the Gospel of John.

In terms of dating the whole book however, I think the earliest date I've seen was 50-70AD. Most assume it was written in layers with at least the first layer being an eye witness account.

http://www.chafer.edu/files/v14no2_date_of_john_s_gospel.pdf

Based on the lengthy narratives and the overall content of that particular book, either it had to have been forged outright by someone that just made it up, or it had to have come from someone in the room when those statements were made. In many cases that would have been limited to Apostles only.

A "trumped up" account would have had a very difficult time being accepted into the Christian community. The fact it was canonized tends to suggest it came from a respected source within the early Christian communities.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Yes, first of all the majority of biblical scholars agree that John was written in the mid to late first century.;

In terms of the *whole* book, sure. It's also assumed it was written in *layers* with at least the first one being an eye witness account.

Secondly, the majority of biblical scholars agree that John was the last of the four gospels.

So what? In terms of a complete "book", maybe. In terms of the quote I cited for you, only Apostles and Jesus would have been present in that room.

Thirdly, the majority of biblical scholars agree that John is the least reliable.

Why?

Fourthly, the majority of biblical scholars agree that John was not written by John.

It's not like there is complete agreement one way or the other. It's not like they don't discuss layers and attribute at least the first such layer to eye witness accounts, like the one I cited for you.

IMO the Gospel of Thomas is likely to predate all the Synoptic Gospels since materials from that document seem to have been used to construct the Synoptic Gospels. For all I know it was a sayings list that got put together *by Apostles* while Christ was alive. It's exactly the type of material we might expect Apostles to carry with them, to jog their memory, when they went off evangelizing.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Frankly I've also seen those same folks arguing about the extremely low literacy rates of Jews of that era without respect to Jewish religious traditions and customs too. I'm not all that impressed by anything I've read with respect to the origins of the Gospel of John.

In terms of dating the whole book however, I think the earliest date I've seen was 50-70AD. Most assume it was written in layers with at least the first layer being an eye witness account.

http://www.chafer.edu/files/v14no2_date_of_john_s_gospel.pdf

Based on the lengthy narratives and the overall content of that particular book, either it had to have been forged outright by someone that just made it up, or it had to have come from someone in the room when those statements were made. In many cases that would have been limited to Apostles only.

A "trumped up" account would have had a very difficult time being accepted into the Christian community. The fact it was canonized tends to suggest it came from a respected source within the early Christian communities.

What do you think the literacy rate was during Jesus' time?

If you haven't been impressed with what you have read regarding the origins of the gospel of John, why? Where they using faulty evidence to come up with a probably conclusion?

The canonization process was done by men and I can guarantee you, was not a flawless process, where agendas and politics didn't come into play.
 
Upvote 0

madaz

dyslexic agnostic insomniac
Mar 14, 2012
1,408
26
Gold Coast Australia
✟24,455.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
From my vantage point you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of now time fixated on the *mechanics* of how the book was put together now rather than the contents. Why? You didn't do that with the OT. What's up with the mechanical/historical critique of the NT?

Quite frankly I don't care much for what you or a couple of biblical scholars believe Michael, I dismiss beliefs as I dismiss heresay as I dismiss personal experiences, you believe far too many things, for example you even believe the facts I have presented thus far are actually just beliefs. Why should I accept the contents of the four gospels when they are simply copies of copies of copies of copies with centuries of errors and corrections that contribute to these errors by the scribes. It would be foolish to accept the "contents" when the "mehanics" have been compromised to such a degree.

There is not a single first hand account of Jesus teachings. Not one! That is not a belief, it is a fact!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
What do you think the literacy rate was during Jesus' time?

Within the larger community as a whole, quite low (15 percent)? Within the devotedly religious male Jewish community however it was another story. A devote Jewish father is *expected* to teach their sons how to read from the Torah. Matthew was even reported to be a tax collector and he would have needed to be fluent in *multiple* languages.

If you haven't been impressed with what you have read regarding the origins of the gospel of John, why? Where they using faulty evidence to come up with a probably conclusion?
They generally start off by *assuming* that that the literacy rates we low among the Apostles as well as the general population, yet Peter, James and John all have letters that are recorded in the Bible. Furthermore Jesus and James came from the same very literate family. If the Gospel of Thomas is authentic, that's at least on more of the 13 men that would necessarily have been literate.

The canonization process was done by men and I can guarantee you, was not a flawless process, where agendas and politics didn't come into play.
The thing is, I've never personally argued any point that requires a "flawless process" to start with. It's not like the OT material is any *more* reliable than any of the rest of it. I therefore don't understand the point of giving the origins of the OT a free pass, while fixating so hard on the historical origins of the NT. So what if it's not "perfect"? I've already admitted that is a possibility, but in terms of how those statements jive with my own experiences of God, I still see no ideological or serious flaws in the text attributed to Christ.

The bottom line is that none of us will ever know *exactly* how that material came to exist, but it's ultimately irrelevant to Madaz's argument in terms of defining the *character* of something he associates with "my" concept of God. In short, it seems like a complete distraction more than a critical part of his argument.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Quite frankly I don't care much for what you or a couple of biblical scholars believe Michael,

So why are you asking me such questions to start with? How are such questions even remotely related to your argument?

I dismiss beliefs as I dismiss heresay as I dismiss personal experiences,
Do you also dismiss my hearsay evidence of something that I call "sight"?

you believe far too many things,
I see. :)

for example you even believe the facts I have presented thus far are actually just beliefs.
That is in fact all they are.

Why should I accept the contents of the four gospels when they are simply copies of copies of copies of copies with centuries of errors and corrections that contribute to these errors by the scribes.
It's intriguing to me which parts you seem to think are 'reliable' (like genocide accounts of the OT), and which parts you simply toss out on a whim. There is apparently no rhyme nor reason to it. Those same criticisms apply to the OT don't they?

It would be foolish to accept the "contents" when the "mehanics" have been compromised to such a degree.
Sorry, that's just irrational. All historical accounts tend to compromised to some degree or another. By your logic we should assume no ancient historical text is reliable. Plenty of "facts" related to the OT accounts have been verified in recent times. If they were as "unreliable" as you keep claiming, that wouldn't have occurred.

There is not a single first hand account of Jesus teachings. Not one! That is not a belief, it is a fact!
That's *your personal* belief, it's not a fact. In fact there is a letter from James recorded in the Bible. How do you know that letter isn't a first hand account? You're just making this up as you go as far as I can tell.

You also never commented on that link I provided you about the way the author of Mark incorporated sayings from The Gospel Of Thomas, another document that reports to be a *first hand* account of the teachings of Jesus.

The amusing part of this line of argument is that it's directly the opposite of what you did with the OT materials. You simply *assumed* the OT materials were accurate for the sake of your argument, yet now you're doing exactly the opposite. You apparently can't support your claims about my beliefs in a malevolent God based on the teachings of Jesus, so now you're doing an about face. You're doing your best to avoid dealing with Christ's statements by trying to discredit their origins. :confused: :doh:

Stick to the topic. What statements from the lips of Jesus actually support your claims about God being malevolent? Any?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Within the larger community as a whole, quite low (15 percent)? Within the devotedly religious male Jewish community however it was another story. A devote Jewish father is *expected* to teach their sons how to read from the Torah. Matthew was even reported to be a tax collector and he would have needed to be fluent in *multiple* languages.

They generally start off by *assuming* that that the literacy rates we low among the Apostles as well as the general population, yet Peter, James and John all have letters that are recorded in the Bible. Furthermore Jesus and James came from the same very literate family. If the Gospel of Thomas is authentic, that's at least on more of the 13 men that would necessarily have been literate.

The thing is, I've never personally argued any point that requires a "flawless process" to start with. It's not like the OT material is any *more* reliable than any of the rest of it. I therefore don't understand the point of giving the origins of the OT a free pass, while fixating so hard on the historical origins of the NT. So what if it's not "perfect"? I've already admitted that is a possibility, but in terms of how those statements jive with my own experiences of God, I still see no ideological or serious flaws in the text attributed to Christ.

The bottom line is that none of us will ever know *exactly* how that material came to exist, but it's ultimately irrelevant to Madaz's argument in terms of defining the *character* of something he associates with "my" concept of God. In short, it seems like a complete distraction more than a critical part of his argument.

Michael,

As a christian, I don't blame you for blowing off the rest of the bible and sticking to those specific parts that discuss Jesus. A whole bunch of christians do the same and since many other parts of the book are so unpleasant and don't appear to jive with how most christians want to describe God, it is understandable. When I was a christian, I basically did the same thing, until I dug a little deeper and I just couldn't reconcile the story with reality any longer.

For those that can reconcile the story based on faith, more power to you.
 
Upvote 0

madaz

dyslexic agnostic insomniac
Mar 14, 2012
1,408
26
Gold Coast Australia
✟24,455.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Stick to the topic. What statements from the lips of Jesus actually support your claims about God being malevolent? Any?

Michael you are dancing around again.

When we discussed the OT you constantly insisted I respond with NT content.

Now that we are discussing the NT, you claim the topic is the OT.

What do you want to discuss?

Gods malevolence (which I thought we had moved on from) or the teachings of Jesus?

You make the call, and make a promise to stick to it.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Why should I accept the contents of the four gospels when they are simply copies of copies of copies of copies with centuries of errors and corrections that contribute to these errors by the scribes.

Accuracy of The Torah Text | Bible

FYI, this website addresses the accuracy of the copying aspects of your argument and explains some of the ways these issues were dealt with.

Furthermore, there are ways to verify that copies of copies remained true to their original text:

Apologetics Press - The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Accuracy of The Torah Text | Bible

FYI, this website addresses the accuracy of the copying aspects of your argument and explains some of the ways these issues were dealt with.

Furthermore, there are ways to verify that copies of copies remained true to their original text:

Apologetics Press - The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity

I would agree that some of the criticism based on not having the originals and only copies of copies of copies is likely overblown by some (Bart Ehrman does this a bit), he also raises many valid points, that were very unpopular, simply because people didn't want to hear them. I'm quite positive, that most christians were unaware, that originals of the NT were non-existent and the four gospels were penned by anonymous authors, decades after Jesus lived and we only had copies of copies penned centuries later. They were also likely unaware, that some of the most famous portions of the NT, were added centuries later and were likely manufactured to fill an agenda.

Does this mean you throw the entire NT in the garbage? No, not by any means, but it does mean at the least, you don't just assume the parts you like are automatically legitimate either.

Myself personally, I have a major issue with the flow from the OT to the NT and how both are canonized as legit, yet, they CAN NOT be reconciled with each other in any logical way. And by the way, Jesus is quoted in the NT as stating; the OT is the word of God and must be followed. If that is what Jesus thought, it brings into question whether he never said that and they wrote it anyway, or he did say it and that would have to make you wonder.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Michael you are dancing around again.

Not me. The entire time I've been trying to get you to use *Jesus* to support any claims that you're making about *my* beliefs in God based on the Bible. You have consistently refused my request.

When we discussed the OT you constantly insisted I respond with NT content.
I insisted you stick to the teachings of Christ because I'm not a believer in Biblical infallibility, nor do believe Moses anymore than you do, and yet you keep talking about *my* beliefs about God. :confused:

Now that we are discussing the NT, you claim the topic is the OT.
Huh? No! I simply pointed out that you gave Moses and the OT a free pass, and you're still *not* quoting Jesus to make your argument as I requested.

What do you want to discuss?
I expected you to discuss your 'point 3' based on relevant texts. You have yet to do so.

Gods malevolence (which I thought we had moved on from) or the teachings of Jesus?
You didn't demonstrate God's malevolence, you demonstrated Moses was malevolent. If you want to talk about *my* beliefs related to God based on the texts of the Bible, you'll still need to make your argument based on Christs teachings. You've not done that.

You make the call, and make a promise to stick to it.
Oy vey. First you got all upset and called me a liar because I *assumed* that you must have been referring to the OT when discussing what you called *my God" and claimed *my God* was malevolent. After you calmed down, you then *confirmed* that you were indeed talking about the OT when talking about something you keep calling *my God*, even though I personally place *zero* value on the OT content! Now you're still trying to avoid *my* actual beliefs about God by *avoiding* making your case about *my God* based on the teachings of Jesus. You're going in complete circles and ignoring your *responsibility* treat me as an *individual*.

If you can't demonstrate *from the lips of Jesus* that God is malevolent, you have no right to even discuss *my* concept of God at all and you have no right to call "my" God malevolent! It's really that simple.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I would agree that some of the criticism based on not having the originals and only copies of copies of copies is likely overblown by some (Bart Ehrman does this a bit), he also raises many valid points, that were very unpopular, simply because people didn't want to hear them.

If copying were a problem we'd see substantial (not minor) evidence of that problem. In fact however we see that copies that are thousands of years newer match up quite well with the dead sea scrolls. It's an overblown argument IMO.

I'm quite positive, that most christians were unaware, that originals of the NT were non-existent and the four gospels were penned by anonymous authors, decades after Jesus lived and we only had copies of copies penned centuries later.
I do find it odd how much *more* some atheists know about history than Christians, I'll grant you that much.

They were also likely unaware, that some of the most famous portions of the NT, were added centuries later and were likely manufactured to fill an agenda.
I've heard conspiracy theories on lots of topics, and frankly they're almost always wrong. This kind of argument sounds a lot like someone trying to claim the moon landings were a hoax IMO.

Does this mean you throw the entire NT in the garbage? No, not by any means, but it does mean at the least, you don't just assume the parts you like are automatically legitimate either.
Agreed, but then how does any of that relate to his *original* claim about *my* (concept of) God being 'malevolent'?

Myself personally, I have a major issue with the flow from the OT to the NT and how both are canonized as legit, yet, they CAN NOT be reconciled with each other in any logical way.
Well, I've seen folks at least *attempt* to reconcile the OT and NT. It ends up being an exercise in mental gymnastics in most cases IMO.

And by the way, Jesus is quoted in the NT as stating; the OT is the word of God and must be followed.
I *assume* that you're referring to Matthew 5 (think not that I have come to destroy the law?) where he also said "You have heard an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (direct quote from Moses),....."but I say".....Love your enemy, turn the other cheek and be perfect as God is perfect. One gets the distinct impression that the whole reason he even refers to the "law" (10 commandments) was because he took a lot of heat over dissing on Moses and the whole revenge concept of Judaism. I'd hardly call that a resounding stamp of approval for genocide. Furthermore, unlike Moses, Jesus never committed any type of violence to further his religious agenda.

If that is what Jesus thought, it brings into question whether he never said that and they wrote it anyway, or he did say it and that would have to make you wonder.
It makes me wonder how he responded when people publicly asked him quite bluntly where he gets off elevating himself above Moses. I get the distinct feeling he got asked that a lot!

His "answer" in Matthew 5 was to point out that he was the prophesied Messiah of Judaism, and therefore he had had that right.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If copying were a problem we'd see substantial (not minor) evidence of that problem. In fact however we see that copies that are thousands of years newer match up quite well with the dead sea scrolls. It's an overblown argument IMO.

I do find it odd how much *more* some atheists know about history than Christians, I'll grant you that much.

I've heard conspiracy theories on lots of topics, and frankly they're almost always wrong. This kind of argument sounds a lot like someone trying to claim the moon landings were a hoax IMO.

Agreed, but then how does any of that relate to his *original* claim about *my* (concept of) God being 'malevolent'?

Well, I've seen folks at least *attempt* to reconcile the OT and NT. It ends up being an exercise in mental gymnastics in most cases IMO.

I *assume* that you're referring to Matthew 5 where he claimed "You have heard an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (direct quote from Moses),....."but I say".....Love your enemy, turn the other cheek and be perfect as God is perfect. One gets the distinct impression that the whole reason he even refers to the "law" (10 commandments) was because he took a lot of heat over dissing on Moses and the whole revenge concept of religion. I'd hardly call that resounding stamp of approval for genocide. Furthermore, unlike Moses, Jesus never committed any time of violence to further his religious agenda.

It makes me wonder how he responded when people publicly asked him quite bluntly where he gets off elevating himself above Moses. I get the distinct feeling he got asked that a lot!

His "answer" in Matthew 5 was to point out that he was the prophesied Messiah of Judaism, and therefore he had had that right.

In regards to adding text centuries later; it is not a hoax, it is a fact. When the text or story does not appear in any of the oldest copies of the NT and then it magically shows up centuries later, there isn't a lot to debate, the story was either there or it wasn't.

Even most of the conservative scholars agree to this and that is saying something.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
In regards to adding text centuries later; it is not a hoax, it is a fact. When the text or story does not appear in any of the oldest copies of the NT and then it magically shows up centuries later, there isn't a lot to debate, the story was either there or it wasn't.

Even most of the conservative scholars agree to this and that is saying something.

It seems to me that you'd first have to know for a fact that the older copy is complete. Which specific incident are you referring to exactly?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
It's important to point out here that in terms of the argument Madaz tried to make about "my" (concept of) God, it's really an irrelevant issue. Whether every statement attributed to Jesus is accurate or not, I've agreed to defend them all. It's not like it really matters in terms of his *original* claim about the character and nature of "my" (concept of) God. Even if they aren't 100 percent accurate, I've already committed myself to defending those statements anyway. The accuracy aspect shouldn't matter one iota in terms of supporting his original claim.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It seems to me that you'd first have to know for a fact that the older copy is complete. Which specific incident are you referring to exactly?

Women taken into adultery. Story didn't show up until almost 1000 AD and there were an abundance of full copies before hand.

Some scholars believe the language of the trinity was added centuries later as well.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Women taken into adultery. Story didn't show up until almost 1000 AD and there were an abundance of full copies before hand.

Some scholars believe the language of the trinity was added centuries later as well.

You're eventually going to have to cite a specific paper and author for me in order for me to comment intelligently on specific claims. I've heard such redaction claims many times by atheists, but when I've looked at original author's work, the original author's claim is often a "pure guess" based on all sorts of personal biases.

There's some merit to the trinity aspect IMO, but it's not as simple as most seem to assume. There was however a political *choice* and there were political influences involved in that particular claim.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Women taken into adultery. Story didn't show up until almost 1000 AD and there were an abundance of full copies before hand.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI, your thousand year figure didn't quite sound right to me so I did some research:

Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.
Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:
"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."[14]

Your point is still valid of course, but the timing is a bit off.

As it relates to the concept of a malevolent God however, it certainly doesn't *help* Madaz. In a worst case scenario it's simply "morally consistent" with the rest of the texts that are attributed to Christ.
 
Upvote 0