Atheists/Agnostics & Death

[redleghunter]

I don't know if you have ever studied the work of well credentialed NT historians, who utilize the historical method in their work, but you may be disappointed in their conclusions on NT historicity.

I have. For some reason NT historians in the 21st century ignore the fact that the 19th century skeptics have been proven wrong in the 20th century.

Take for example the Gospel according to Luke:

I believe one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archeological evidence for the New Testament is in the account of the famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:
"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4."
The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:
"Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5."

You can directly examine the work of Sir William Ramsay here:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.ed...?key=Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939

 

[Cute Tink]

Spiritual truth is self validating like any other transcendent phenomenon recognized by a mind conscious of values. For instance, the Sermon on the Mount speaks spiritual truth regardless of accounts of eyewitnesses or not. The true flock knows the voice of the shepherd when one speaks it.

Are you suggesting I don't have a mind conscious of values?

 

[bhsmte]

I have. For some reason NT historians in the 21st century ignore the fact that the 19th century skeptics have been proven wrong in the 20th century.

Take for example the Gospel according to Luke:

I believe one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archeological evidence for the New Testament is in the account of the famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:
"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4."
The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:
"Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5."

You can directly examine the work of Sir William Ramsay here:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939

I don't rely on the opinion of one man.

Do you know who wrote the gospel of Luke?

 

[redleghunter]

I simply don't accept that the Bible stands alone as a self-validating document. Other historical references are often validated with other sources. Show me a source, other than the Bible, that establishes what this group of 500 people saw and you'll be getting somewhere.

Again you are applying a double standard. There were 8 or more persons who authored various books or epistles in the NT. If you discount them as all biased, then we would need to confirm the accounts of the Roman empire with the historical accounts of Arabia, Parthia and the Germanic tribes.

 

[Cute Tink]

Again you are applying a double standard. There were 8 or more persons who authored various books or epistles in the NT. If you discount them as all biased, then we would need to confirm the accounts of the Roman empire with the historical accounts of Arabia, Parthia and the Germanic tribes.

Double standard? You think I don't expect as much out of everything that people want to call "historical"?

 

[redleghunter]

I don't rely on the opinion of one man.

Do you know who wrote the gospel of Luke?

Have you studied theology? I gave one example because Sir William Ramsay was the most respected archaeologist of his time. I linked his works which has a full bibliography and annexes to his digs and discoveries.

However, if you are interested below is link to a list of NT books and the scholars who have voiced authorship and dating based on their life's work:

Dating of NT Books:
http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dating-nt-chronological_order.htm

Authorship:

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/nt-authors.htm

Research credited to Gary Butner, Th.D. and R.A. Sickler, Ph.D.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you studied theology? I gave one example because Sir William Ramsay was the most respected archaeologist of his time. I linked his works which has a full bibliography and annexes to his digs and discoveries.

However, if you are interested below is link to a list of NT books and the scholars who have voiced authorship and dating based on their life's work:

Dating of NT Books:
http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dating-nt-chronological_order.htm

Authorship:

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/nt-authors.htm

Research credited to Gary Butner, Th.D. and R.A. Sickler, Ph.D.

I have read the works of NT scholars and historians extensively, which is one reason, I am no longer a Christian.

Can you answer my question; who wrote the gospel of Luke? And, who wrote the other 3 gospels?

 

[redleghunter]

Double standard? You think I don't expect as much out of everything that people want to call "historical"?

That's good. So being consistent we can call to question that Gaius Julius Caesar could be a myth or was some leader in and around Rome.

Here's a striking comparison. There are over 5,000 extant (known) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They range in date from the second century to the sixteenth. That puts the earliest manuscripts less than 100 years from the autographs. Take in comparison the main source of the Greek Peloponnesian War which is Thucydides. His works as an eyewitness and participant was circa 460-400 BC (BCE). The earliest manuscript of his works date 900 AD (CE). The gap is 1,300 years from supposed autograph to earliest manuscript. NT less than 100 years; secular Athenian pagan Thucydides 1,300 years.

Yet Thucydides in university academia is never questioned for his investigative approach, nor called biased even though he was Athenian only one of many belligerents in the war. The NT authors somehow are held to a higher threshold even though the 'gap' between autograph to manuscript is a fraction of the pagan Thucydides. That is a double standard.

More comparisons here:

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

​

 

[Cute Tink]

That's good. So being consistent we can call to question that Gaius Julius Caesar could be a myth or was some leader in and around Rome.

Here's a striking comparison. There are over 5,000 extant (known) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They range in date from the second century to the sixteenth. That puts the earliest manuscripts less than 100 years from the autographs. Take in comparison the main source of the Greek Peloponnesian War which is Thucydides. His works as an eyewitness and participant was circa 460-400 BC (BCE). The earliest manuscript of his works date 900 AD (CE). The gap is 1,300 years from supposed autograph to earliest manuscript. NT less than 100 years; secular Athenian pagan Thucydides 1,300 years.

Yet Thucydides in university academia is never questioned for his investigative approach, nor called biased even though he was Athenian only one of many belligerents in the war. The NT authors somehow are held to a higher threshold even though the 'gap' between autograph to manuscript is a fraction of the pagan Thucydides. That is a double standard.

More comparisons here:

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

I'm sorry, but you are posting random comparisons to historical events and I get why you are doing it, but nothing in the Greek Peloponnesian War is expecting me to believe in a supreme being and devote my life to Him, nor am I responsible for any double standards of university academia. I really don't care enough about this War to bother looking into whether there is specific validity involved or cross-historical references.

Show me a comparison to another religion and I'll show you how little I believe in that one too.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry, but you are posting random comparisons to historical events and I get why you are doing it, but nothing in the Greek Peloponnesian War is expecting me to believe in a supreme being and devote my life to Him, nor am I responsible for any double standards of university academia. I really don't care enough about this War to bother looking into whether there is specific validity involved or cross-historical references.

Show me a comparison to another religion and I'll show you how little I believe in that one too.

This tactic is called; muddying the waters.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm sorry, but you are posting random comparisons to historical events and I get why you are doing it, but nothing in the Greek Peloponnesian War is expecting me to believe in a supreme being and devote my life to Him, nor am I responsible for any double standards of university academia. I really don't care enough about this War to bother looking into whether there is specific validity involved or cross-historical references...

The Greek Peloponnesian War was one example. I used Caesar previously. I linked other examples for comparitive analysis. But as you mentioned above you don't care and are not interested.

Show me a comparison to another religion and I'll show you how little I believe in that one too.

Might I ask why do you come to a Christian site if you don't care to hear about it? Are you here for kicks or some form of proselytizing for 'nothingess.'

 

[Colter]

Are you suggesting I don't have a mind conscious of values?

No, not at all. My point is that the technicality of proofs about weather Jesus existed, was killed, resurrected or not, does not detract from the Living qualities of his teachings or the teaching ascribed to the person named Jesus said to have lived.

On a side note, the very fact that you are conscious of values is proof that you are not entirely material/mechanical.

 

[Cute Tink]

The Greek Peloponnesian War was one example. I used Caesar previously. I linked other examples for comparitive analysis. But as you mentioned above you don't care and are not interested.

Mainly I was bothering because of your insistence that I had a double standard. I find a lot of things about history interesting, but to say that I believe the older stuff is guaranteed true is a stretch at best. I expect a certain degree of uncertainty.

Might I ask why do you come to a Christian site if you don't care to hear about it? Are you here for kicks or some form of proselytizing for 'nothingess.'

First of all, I find many of the conversations very interesting, but no, I'm not here specifically to be converted. I'm not against the possibility of being convinced there is a god, but I'm apathetic at this point.

Secondly, I don't proselytize for nothingness, because I don't believe in "nothingness".

No, not at all. My point is that the technicality of proofs about weather Jesus existed, was killed, resurrected or not, does not detract from the Living qualities of his teachings or the teaching ascribed to the person named Jesus said to have lived.

On a side note, the very fact that you are conscious of values is proof that you are not entirely material/mechanical.

I think many of the beliefs in the Bible to be good, valid, moral beliefs. It's the message that God is there and He's the reason for everything I don't believe. I would also note there are many things I find very immoral about what's in the Bible.

 

[Colter]

Mainly I was bothering because of your insistence that I had a double standard. I find a lot of things about history interesting, but to say that I believe the older stuff is guaranteed true is a stretch at best. I expect a certain degree of uncertainty.



First of all, I find many of the conversations very interesting, but no, I'm not here specifically to be converted. I'm not against the possibility of being convinced there is a god, but I'm apathetic at this point.

Secondly, I don't proselytize for nothingness, because I don't believe in "nothingness".



I think many of the beliefs in the Bible to be good, valid, moral beliefs. It's the message that God is there and He's the reason for everything I don't believe. I would also note there are many things I find very immoral about what's in the Bible.

I agree, the bible is like a flee market, it represents the ebb and flow of social evolution over many ages. What was accepted in one age is a awful in another.

 

[Winken]

I agree, the bible is like a flee market, it represents the ebb and flow of social evolution over many ages. What was accepted in one age is a awfule in another.

Whoa! What? Social evolution? Coulter, God doesn't change His mind, didn't create multiple universes with multiple Messiahs! Your religion is buffeting you about!

 

[Colter]

Whoa! What? Social evolution? Coulter, God doesn't change His mind, didn't create multiple universes with multiple Messiahs! Your religion is buffeting you about!

I agree with you, it's not God that changes, it's mans understanding of God that changes, fostered by revelations great and small. The Bible coincides with the spiritual and historic evolution of one particular vein of civilization.

 

[Winken]

I agree with you, it's not God that changes, it's mans understanding of God that changes, fostered by revelations great and small. The Bible coincides with the spiritual and historic evolution of one particular vein of civilization.

Before space and time God brought into being space and time, establishing a magnificent existence for humans in an awesome environment, while revealing the consequences of choosing "man's understanding."

Man's understanding is incapable of comprehending God. He, and He alone, revealed all that there is to know, Spiritually. The single revelation, the single understanding, was synonymous with the single creation.

God revealed; man's interpretation is pointless. There is no "spiritual and historic evolution of one particular vein" that is not revealed between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21. One and only one vein is revealed, that by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing external to that one revelation. It is continuous, unchanging, forever. It is not subject to monitoring, auditing, or editing by man. The Holy Spirit has always been. He IS, without man's evaluation.

Man can bounce around all over the place, only to discover in the end that everything he needed to know, Spiritually, had been presented instantaneously, bursting forth from God's eternal plan, formed before the creation, and right there on the pages of THE Book.

 

[Deidre32]

So true Colter. The scripture tells us that God has blinded their eyes to the truth so they cannot see and that the natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit. if you insist on trying to understand God with natural thoughts and ideas you are going to end up the creek without a paddle. The scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith is an unknown quantity for an atheist because he relies entirely on his own logic which most of the time is not logical.

I am pleased to say that some atheists do find out the truth when they are open to learn the truth. Examples are Malcolm Muggeridge, Anthony Flew, Derek Prince, Christopher Hitchens brother, C.S Lewis, Kirk Cameron, Douglas Ell, Guillaume Bignon, Jennifer Fulwiler and Rosaria Champagne Butterfield to name a few.

That could be true, but then no one knows. Religion attempts to understand ''god'' in a human way, but if a god exists, to me...he may not at all resemble what any religion has conjured up.

 

[Deidre32]

View attachment 162487

 

[Deidre32]

I've been busy today and just got into this thread now. Thank you very much for your thoughts, advice, and encouragement. Even if I disagree, I still appreciate the effort to come in here and lift my spirits.

I've been so sad about this lately. I read old emails, look at his memorial face book page, I keep thinking he will appear somewhere...out of nowhere. He will say this has all been a mistake...and I wake up from this nightmare. But, it's not a nightmare, he is really gone. It is just a sad reality.