Atheism (3)

[createdtoworship]

I don't care about Plato...I'm only stating the facts about the Bible. Oh...as far as detail goes...there really is very little detail about Jesus in the Bible. And a great deal of what is there does not even jibe across the various books in the Bible.

.

okay then throw out Caesar, Livy, plato, tacitus, pliny the younger, thucydides, seutonius, herodotus, horace, sophocles, lucretius, catullus, euripides, demosthenes and aristotle. Because all of those are copies that are 750 to 1,400 years after they were written.

 

[dlamberth]

I could say the same about plato then, and we would have to toss his work.

Added to what I already wrote, the different regions in those ancient times each had their own beliefs about Jesus. Among His followers there was no single agreed upon belief system about Him. That didn't even begin to happen until a couple of hundred years after His death.

.

 

[dlamberth]

okay then throw out Caesar, Livy, plato, tacitus, pliny the younger, thucydides, seutonius, herodotus, horace, sophocles, lucretius, catullus, euripides, demosthenes and aristotle. Because all of those are copies that are 750 to 1,400 years after they were written.

OK...throw all of them away, I don't care. It changes nothing.

The Bible is about man opening up to the presence of God in our lives. It is not a history nor a science book. It's helpful to know how the Bible came together along with early pre-Christian history and how that religion changed through the years as it matured. It isn't all nice and clean in how Christian theology was developed. And it took hundred of years for that to happen. The mistake many Christians make today is that they don't know the history of their own Bible, or of those early Christians who displayed a wide variety of beliefs.

At the same time, the Bible that eventually came out provided invaluable spiritual direction on how to make God a reality in our daily lives. It tells us that's done mainly through Love, Compassion and Service to others.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

actually you are wrong, just like plato has an original source, the Bible does too. They are eye witness accounts to Jesus! How could they be written 20-30 years later, would you remember all that detail after that long. Most likely as with plato, the writings had an original that is no longer extant. No longer available. One difference plato's copies are dated 1000 years after the alleged original. Not 20-30 like the Bible.

Oh, well, just because they CLAIM to be eyewitness accounts, they must be eyewitness accounts, right?

Give me a break, even Christian biblical scholars are fully aware the gospels were likely written between 70AD and 110AD, by people who never met Jesus. Likewise, they also believe the later gospels were written based on the book of Mark... Some even plagiarized full sections word for word.

And again, I don't know know why you're bringing up Plato? Plato was a philosopher, and his work stands on it's own merits. Whether or not the man who wrote those books was actually named Plato was irrelevant. Furthermore, there are some works attributed to him to which the authorship is debated by historians.

empirical labratory support lacks for many things.

as a friend once said " Nothing like a graviton has ever been seen in the 'natural' world. Some non standard brands of particle physics theory include theoretical SUSY particles, again such theoretical particles are completely "unseen" in any lab. LHC has already looked for and eliminated several SUSY particle models. The cosmology side of physics proposes inflation, dark energy and dark matter, none of which enjoy empirical laboratory support. These things are all "unseen" (in the lab)"

so since the miracles are unseen like cold dark matter, it does not mean they don't exist.

This one actually made me laugh out loud

Do you not realize why several SUSY particle models have been eliminated?

LACK OF EVIDENCE!!

So why would we accept miracles when they have the exact same lack of evidence?

Seriously, I'm completely dumbfounded you can even put this argument forward! Your premise directly contradicts your point!

 

[dlamberth]

defense of biblical miracles from a philosophical perspective

(eBook) Geisler, Norman - MIRACLES and the Modern Mind - A Defense of Biblical Miracles Complete) (Christian Library, Apologetics

Miracles are a wonderful thing. I love reading about them and hearing about them and I especially love seeing miracles. But they prove nothing. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, American Indian, Ancient Paganism, Ancient Greek, ect, ect, all have Miracles stories. God isn't about phenomena, and in fact that sort of stuff can be a distraction away from God.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The original accounts about Jesus were passed on through the oral traditions...which was the way information was passed on in those ancient times. As an example it is through the oral tradition in which Paul learned about the teachings of Jesus.

Today, it's commonly accepted knowledge among Biblical historical scholars that none of the gospels were written by anyone who actually saw Jesus.

.

Well, that's not totally true. There were many written records, and I'm sure since the Jewish Authorities were aware of their Messiah from birth, they'd have had a historian or two chronicling everything about him and all of his teachings... And other non-Jewish historians would have been made aware of him.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I could say the same about plato then, and we would have to toss his work.

No. That's simply ridiculous

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay then throw out Caesar, Livy, plato, tacitus, pliny the younger, thucydides, seutonius, herodotus, horace, sophocles, lucretius, catullus, euripides, demosthenes and aristotle. Because all of those are copies that are 750 to 1,400 years after they were written.

All you're doing by making idiotic statements like this is showing your abject ignorance when it comes to how history is gathered and examined.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, that's not totally true. There were many written records, and I'm sure since the Jewish Authorities were aware of their Messiah from birth, they'd have had a historian or two chronicling everything about him and all of his teachings... And other non-Jewish historians would have been made aware of him.

It is true that in those ancient times it was through Oral Stories through which knowledge was passed. That's a historical truth. It's hard for us today to grasp the depth and breath of Oral Story telling traditions in those ancient times. Instead of watching TV, they listened to the story teller for entertainment. But remember also, very, very few people could read. So they told Stories. The followers of Jesus had their stories they told, some as we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls were much different than what we see in the Bible. The thing is, out side of His followers, Jesus didn't even register as a blip in that ancient Jewish culture. The gospels, all of them, came down through different oral story telling traditions arriving from different routes to be written down decades later into languages that Jesus didn't even speak by people who never even saw Him. And even longer still (a couple hundred years) before those text were gathered into what we today call the Bible.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is true that in those ancient times it was through Oral Stories through which knowledge was passed. That's a historical truth. It's hard for us today to grasp the depth and breath of Oral Story telling traditions in those ancient times. Instead of watching TV, they listened to the story teller for entertainment. But remember also, very, very few people could read. So they told Stories. The followers of Jesus had their stories they told, some as we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls were much different than what we see in the Bible. The thing is, out side of His followers, Jesus didn't even register as a blip in that ancient Jewish culture. The gospels, all of them, came down through different oral story telling traditions arriving from different routes to be written down decades later into languages that Jesus didn't even speak. And even longer (a couple hundred years) before they were gathered into what we today call the Bible..

I'm not disputing that oral traditions formed the basis of passing on a lot of stories and knowledge. I fully accept that as true.

However, the end result of those stories we do not regard anything close to historical fact in the present day.

It's like playing a 40 year game of telephone through hundreds, if not thousands of different storytellers before someone decided to write something down. There's no possible way the end result is anything close to historical accuracy.

 

[dlamberth]

However, the end result of those stories we do not regard anything close to historical fact in the present day.

Agreed...it's not historical fact. And I agree it's a mistake to take the Bible like it is historical fact. The Bible is about man's relationship with God. I think when Christian believers go beyond that meaning of the Bible, that's when they run into problems with non-believers.

.

 

[createdtoworship]

Added to what I already wrote, the different regions in those ancient times each had their own beliefs about Jesus. Among His followers there was no single agreed upon belief system about Him. That didn't even begin to happen until a couple of hundred years after His death.

.

no when you quote the nicene/anti-nicene founding fathers on Jesus they were in complete agreement.

 

[createdtoworship]

OK...throw all of them away, I don't care. It changes nothing.

The Bible is about man opening up to the presence of God in our lives. It is not a history nor a science book. It's helpful to know how the Bible came together along with early pre-Christian history and how that religion changed through the years as it matured. It isn't all nice and clean in how Christian theology was developed. And it took hundred of years for that to happen. The mistake many Christians make today is that they don't know the history of their own Bible, or of those early Christians who displayed a wide variety of beliefs.

At the same time, the Bible that eventually came out provided invaluable spiritual direction on how to make God a reality in our daily lives. It tells us that's done mainly through Love, Compassion and Service to others.

.

well for someone who just tossed out most of their ancient history, no wonder.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is true that in those ancient times it was through Oral Stories through which knowledge was passed. That's a historical truth. It's hard for us today to grasp the depth and breath of Oral Story telling traditions in those ancient times. Instead of watching TV, they listened to the story teller for entertainment. But remember also, very, very few people could read. So they told Stories. The followers of Jesus had their stories they told, some as we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls were much different than what we see in the Bible. The thing is, out side of His followers, Jesus didn't even register as a blip in that ancient Jewish culture. The gospels, all of them, came down through different oral story telling traditions arriving from different routes to be written down decades later into languages that Jesus didn't even speak by people who never even saw Him. And even longer still (a couple hundred years) before those text were gathered into what we today call the Bible.

.

do a google search for Jewish scribal practices, and you'll change your mind

 

[createdtoworship]

All you're doing by making idiotic statements like this is showing your abject ignorance when it comes to how history is gathered and examined.

strawman, and redherring, and poisoning the well. Should I go on with your fallacies you make when you insult....abusive ad hominem!

 

[dlamberth]

well for someone who just tossed out most of their ancient history, no wonder.

Nope...I didn't do that at all. You want to put the Bible into the class of a history book. But it's not a history book. It's a book about man's relationship with God. All of those other books are in a different class all together.

.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope...I didn't do that at all. You want to put the Bible into the class of a history book. But it's not a history book. It's a book about man's relationship with God. All of those other books are in a different class all together.

.

so your saying that all ancient history completely removes greek mythology or ANY religious material? Hardly

 

[dlamberth]

do a google search for Jewish scribal practices, and you'll change your mind

I did...nothing changed. It was through oral story tellers that the Story of Jesus first passed through the middle-east. That's how Paul learned while sitting in Rome.

.

 

[dlamberth]

so your saying that all ancient history completely removes greek mythology or ANY religious material? Hardly

Nope...I did not say that. Please don't twist words. I'm saying that for "this" argument about the Bible, it doesn't matter at all. This is about the Bible...not all of that other stuff.

.

 

[trientje]

Mr Ellis, Just read one of your posts. James Randi? You sited James Randi? He is an atheist and pseudo skeptic a "street magician."
Atheism is Dead: James Randi - the Amazing Atheist, part 1 of 2

Just like most of your information comes from other atheist sites.

As far as Nazareth goes. My family in Israel says Nazareth has been in existence for centuries and was most certainly in existence during the time of Jesus. Most of my family there are Jews, some Christians, and a good many that do not believe in much of anything and they all agree. But of course, you would just say that is hearsay and dismiss it.So the proof is on you. If you can show us what sites you have studied and prove your beliefs.