• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • 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.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,150
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,623.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You mean by Historians or on this thread.
There are earlier sources, Q according to scholars
Q is based on research into the similarities between the Gospels, hinting at an earlier written souce.
As he Gosples date from 55, that would mean Q would have existed in written form within 20 +/- the Resurrection.
This is not my field of expertise.
There are men, Christians, Agnostics and Atheist who are Biblical Scholars who examine every jot and tittle of every scrap that exists.
Corinthians and Q are the result of their research.
I don't go much beyond reading about it than as an interested fan.
I just take it on faith.
That's the first we have heard of it in this thread. I don't know what Kylie will make of it--the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Your suggestion is at least an attempt at discussion instead. Kylie has been accused of arguing dishonestly. It is beginning to seem that the dishonesty lies with others.
 
Upvote 0

QvQ

Member
Aug 18, 2019
2,215
998
AZ
✟134,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Y
The explanation I see from the Scholary researchers who read and write many ancient languages, analyse every curlique and determine whether the text is an insertion (quote) and determine who wrote what when...
Those guys:
There were written documents and verbal testimony created, collected or passed along to Paul and whoever put the Bible in the form of AD 65.
The ealier documents existed, and date from very close to the Crucifixion based on the evidence of Q, which indicated an earlier source for the Gospels.
The Gospels as written in 55-65 are a compilation of earlier source documents.
Corinthian is a special case as it is in the form of a Creed.
It is eyewitness testimony as the date of the source and language indicate factual accounting.

What little I know. There is information all over the internet about Biblical Research.
There is probably much I am not aware of ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

6nvas6ve sc6ence can take a hike!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
23,425
10,984
The Void!
✟1,283,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's the first we have heard of it in this thread. I don't know what Kylie will make of it--the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Your suggestion is at least an attempt at discussion instead. Kylie has been accused of arguing dishonestly. It is beginning to seem that the dishonesty lies with others.

No, she's not equitable and shows little real sign that she's even aware of the various issues that exist in the extensive field of History, even Christian History.

This isn't to say she's not intelligent. Oh, she is, but I for one am not taking on a Burden of Proof when we can't even identify the underlying praxis that most historians rely upon.

What do I have to do to get people to actually attempt to establish an academically qualified baseline for historical inquiry? Apparently nothing since no one will cooperate anyway...................................... it's like, "Why bother?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,150
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,623.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, she's not equitable and shows little real sign that she's even aware of the various issues that exist in the extensive field of History, even Christian History.

This isn't to say she's not intelligent. Oh, she is, but I for one am not taking on a Burden of Proof when we can't even identify the underlying praxis that most historians rely upon.

What do I have to do to get people to actually attempt to establish an academically qualified baseline for historical inquiry? Apparently nothing since no one will cooperate anyway...................................... it's like, "Why bother?"
Because that is not really what this discussion is about. Take a look at QvQ'a quite reasonable post just previous. I don't quite agree with it but even so, it runs into problems within the context of this discussion, in particular the non-negotiable principles of fundamentalist theology, taken as axioms:
1. That the four Gospels were written by their attributed authors as actual eye-witnesses of the events described. Any notion of "sources" is not to be tolerated.
2. That the companions instantly understood that the death of Christ was a penal substutionary sacrifice in expiation of Original Sin
3. That any attempt to contest these principles is nothing less than a sinister attempt to deny the existence of God.
to which we can apparently now add a fourth, that if the first two are not entirely true, then I Corinthians 15 is nothing but a lie, and that the martyrs to the faith died for something they knew to be a falsehood.

Why don't you try arguing authentic Bible scholarship with these fellows and see how far you get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

One nation indivisible
Mar 11, 2017
19,043
14,693
55
USA
✟371,108.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The explanation I see from the Scholary researchers who read and write many ancient languages, analyse every curlique and determine whether the text is an insertion (quote) and determine who wrote what when...
Those guys:
There were written documents and verbal testimony created, collected or passed along to Paul and whoever put the Bible in the form of AD 65.
Seriously, what are you talking about? The general consensus is that the only parts that existed in anything like the current from of the canonical NT were the (7? 8?) letters of Paul.
The ealier documents existed, and date from very close to the Crucifixion based on the evidence of Q, which indicated an earlier source for the Gospels.
The Gospels as written in 55-65 are a compilation of earlier source documents.
That is not a mainstream date and other than "Luke"s claim to have used eyewitness sources, none of the others even makes that claim.
Corinthian is a special case as it is in the form of a Creed.
It is eyewitness testimony as the date of the source and language indicate factual accounting.
The last time this came up (or rather before I stopped paying attention to this "discussion") my search indicated that the "few years after the death of Jesus" is a widely held view of the "1 cor 15" creedal statement Paul incorporates into his letter. As such it testifies to the existence of the beliefs it expresses going back well before Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, possibly before Paul himself converted. It does not demonstrate the correctness of that belief, then or now.
What little I know. There is information all over the internet about Biblical Research.
There is probably much I am not aware of ...
I'm no expert by any means, but much of what you have claimed seems at odds with current, mainstream biblical scholarship.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

6nvas6ve sc6ence can take a hike!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
23,425
10,984
The Void!
✟1,283,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Because that is not really what this discussion is about. Take a look at QvQ'a quite reasonable post just previous. I don't quite agree with it but even so, it runs into problems within the context of this discussion, in particular the non-negotiable principles of fundamentalist theology, taken as axioms:
1. That the four Gospels were written by their attributed authors as actual eye-witnesses of the events described. Any notion of "sources" is not to be tolerated.
2. That the companions instantly understood that the death of Christ was a penal substutionary sacrifice in expiation of Original Sin
3. That any attempt to contest these principles is nothing less than a sinister attempt to deny the existence of God.
to which we can apparently now add a fourth, that if the first two are not entirely true, then I Corinthians 15 is nothing but a lie, and that the martyrs to the faith died for something they knew to be a falsehood.

Why don't you try arguing authentic Bible scholarship with these fellows and see how far you get.

I already have, many times.
 
Upvote 0

QvQ

Member
Aug 18, 2019
2,215
998
AZ
✟134,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. That the four Gospels were written by their attributed authors as actual eye-witnesses of the events described. Any notion of "sources" is not to be tolerated.
I agree absolutely
When the Bible is taken apart by Scholars, every jot and tittle examined, more than any other text in the history of the world, there are going to be all sorts of conclusions and theories.
I have never been certain if the Scholars who promoted Q as an earlier source document did not attribute those source documents to the Eye Witness Authors and mean that Q is simply a comilation like the Catholics deciding on the Cannonical Text
I don't know too much about this
My only point is the Biblical Scholars believe there were earlier souce documents, written and oral.
Documents dating to just after the Crucifixion
Any one interested Q and Corinthians are starting points into that research area

There is the rock bottom fundamentalist viewpoint that the Bible is the Word of God.
God wrote the Bible or revealed the Word to man who wrote it down.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
997
253
Singapore
✟250,784.00
Country
Singapore
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yet the claim under discussion is that there is sufficient material evidence to alone prove the objective truth of the resurrection, and that material evidence is what is being asked for.

The existence of the church is already a strong material proof. Would the 12 apostles have suffered for their faith if they had not seen Jesus in person after the resurrection? It would be easy to set up the church if the Roman authorities didn't prosecute them, but the opposite happened -- Christians were beaten, buried alive, burned on crosses that lined the the streets, thrown to lions, drowned in water. Such immense sufferings would have caused the disciples to give up if they were deluded.

In ancient times, there were only a few educated scribes and historians to keep records -- and this apply to other parts of the world. Back then, they don't have computers , and even papers and writing material were not available to common people, many of whom were illiterate. In spite of that, there were still sufficient material evidence by any standard if we apply the same standard as we do for other historical events and people that we believe were real. If people refuse to accept reasonable evidence, then they won't believe even if they find a video recording of the resurrection and appearance of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yup ... here we go.

The scholarly consensus.

:doh:
Yeah, when the vast majority of people who know much more about a topic than you say something other than what you believe, then they must be wrong, isn't that right?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Which SPECIFIC Bible scholars have you been listening to lately, Kylie? Care to cite and quote a few since------------oh, by golly!--------------you insinuate that you just know so very, very much about the topic of justified true belief and historical warrant.
Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

Dunn, James D. G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 339. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.

Herzog, William R. (1998). Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-0664225285.

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5.

Evans, Craig A. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. BRILL. pp. 2–5. ISBN 978-0391041189.

Tuckett, Christopher M. (2001). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press. pp. 122–126. ISBN 978-0521796781.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN 978-0195124736.

Chilton, Bruce; Evans, Craig A. (2002). Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. BRILL. pp. 3–7. ISBN 978-0391041646.
Your inferred conflation between evidence and proof is annoying. Have you ever studied Historiography? Or the Philosophy of History? Or the Historian's Craft?

Apparently not. If you had, you'd be able to cite some sources. But since you seem to rarely do so, I'm going to suppose you're merely a neophyte learner whose just trying to find her way through the maze and cobwebs of academia.
"We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russel.

Since I have supported my claim that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus is all that Biblical scholars can say happened with anything near certainty (I gave you eight sources for that), then my statement here stands. If you hold that anything else is factual, then you are doing so with so little evidence not even Biblical scholars can agree that it happened. With such a lack of evidence, all you have is faith.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are correct that the same standard must be applied but @Kylie shift goal posts because she is determined not to believe the truth about God.
Here you go again, claiming you know my position better than me.
Even although scholars have proved that the Bible is credible, she will ask for more proof. She alleges that evidences archaeologists, historians, linguists that have evaluated the Bible for more than 100 years, were not credible as if she has the knowledge to evaluate their work.
Are there factual statements in the Bible? Of course. There are references to real places and real people.

But that doesn't mean that all the fantastical claims made in the Bible are true as well.
Christians believe in God based on personal experience, sufficient material evidence and faith. We do not pretend to have 100% evidence for everything. Our personal experience also provide a real basis for continuing to have faith in God. Let her use clever words to claim that our faith is blind, and on judgment day, she will realize how wrong she is.
If personal experience was reliable, then why do so many people have contradictory personal experiences?
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
448
189
18
Bible Belt
✟19,758.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN 978-0195124736.
I know its picky, but Ehrman believes Christ is not divine, so I'm not sure if he is the best source to quote on the Christian faith [or to disprove the Christian faith].
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Mohylite Catholic breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
448
189
18
Bible Belt
✟19,758.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
"We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russel.
This is just a personal point, but I've always considered "the faith" to not specifically be faith in the existence of God, but rather in the personalized affection and grace of God; we know within ourselves that God exists, just as one knows their consciousness exists because they act through it, and therefore the faith is that God is personal and loving of us.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

6nvas6ve sc6ence can take a hike!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
23,425
10,984
The Void!
✟1,283,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

Dunn, James D. G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 339. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.

Herzog, William R. (1998). Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-0664225285.

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5.

Evans, Craig A. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. BRILL. pp. 2–5. ISBN 978-0391041189.

Tuckett, Christopher M. (2001). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press. pp. 122–126. ISBN 978-0521796781.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. ix–xi. ISBN 978-0195124736.

Chilton, Bruce; Evans, Craig A. (2002). Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. BRILL. pp. 3–7. ISBN 978-0391041646.
Ok. Those are acceptable sources in my estimation. Thank you for making the effort. I can respect that.
"We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russel.
Bertrand Russel is always fun to quote, but his definition of faith isn't reflective of how Jewish theologians or Christians theologians define it.

But yeah, good ol' Bertrand. He always was worth a chuckle or two, but be that as it may, I'm going more towards the following definition of 'faith.'



Since I have supported my claim that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus is all that Biblical scholars can say happened with anything near certainty (I gave you eight sources for that), then my statement here stands. If you hold that anything else is factual, then you are doing so with so little evidence not even Biblical scholars can agree that it happened. With such a lack of evidence, all you have is faith.

By your rationale, I can't have faith that Jesus had to take an occasional bathroom break. Like ever.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,560
2,198
44
San jacinto
✟172,121.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That does not change the fact that there are many Muslims willing to die for their beliefs.
Which is irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold.
If Christians believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Christianity is real, then Muslims believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Islam is real,
I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or you struggle to understand a rather simple point about how the beliefs originate.
And when it comes to Islam, that explanation is through the threat of violence?
Yes, Islam initially spread through the threat of violence.
Have you looked at Christian history? Do you think Christianity never had that kind of violence?
Such episodes are exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millenia. But that's not really relevant to how the beliefs originate
And what irrelevant point was that?
The point is in trying to explain the origin and initial spread of the belief. Comparing attitudes of believers centuries removed from the origins isn't relevant to the initial spread. Though again, I'm not sure if your obtuseness on this is genuine lack of comprehension or intellectual dishonesty.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know its picky, but Ehrman believes Christ is not divine, so I'm not sure if he is the best source to quote on the Christian faith [or to disprove the Christian faith].
We're not talking about whether he is divine, we are talking about what Biblical scholars say we can even come close to knowing.

Why should I limit myself to those who believe that Jesus is divine?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is just a personal point, but I've always considered "the faith" to not specifically be faith in the existence of God, but rather in the personalized affection and grace of God; we know within ourselves that God exists, just as one knows their consciousness exists because they act through it, and therefore the faith is that God is personal and loving of us.
And in the same way, Muslims know within themselves that Allah exists, and people of all faiths just know within themselves that their particular deity exists too.

So you'll forgive me if I don't accept that as evidence for anything.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ok. Those are acceptable sources in my estimation. Thank you for making the effort. I can respect that.
So may I take it that you retract your claim about it being "ridiculous"?
Bertrand Russel is always fun to quote, but his definition of faith isn't reflective of how Jewish theologians or Christians theologians define it.

But yeah, good ol' Bertrand. He always was worth a chuckle or two, but be that as it may, I'm going more towards the following definition of 'faith.'

Nonetheless, I think my point is still valid. Faith, even the kind you present here, is never invoked when there is actual evidence available.
By your rationale, I can't have faith that Jesus had to take an occasional bathroom break. Like ever.
A person needing to take a bathroom break is not an extraordinary claim. In fact, it's incredibly mundane. If you really believed what you say here, you'd also have to conclude that you can't be sure that I've ever gone to the bathroom.

But the claim that Jesus had followers who had seen him perform many miracles is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires much more extraordinary evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,020
5,303
✟314,921.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Which is irrelevant to the contrast between how the beliefs took hold.
And yet I've pointed out that there is no practical difference. Both Christianity and Islam have spread due to a combination of people being genuinely convinced and also by threats of violence. You can't claim that Christianity spread only through peace and people genuinely believing and Islam spread only through violence.
I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or you struggle to understand a rather simple point about how the beliefs originate.
You are trying to oversimplify it.

As I've stated several times now, both beliefs spread through both people genuinely believing and through threats of violence.
Yes, Islam initially spread through the threat of violence.
And do you think that Islam never spread through people genuinely believing it?

Do you think that Christianity never spread through the threat of violence?
Such episodes are exceptions rather than the general rule, at least for the first millenia. But that's not really relevant to how the beliefs originate
Source for this claim please?
The point is in trying to explain the origin and initial spread of the belief. Comparing attitudes of believers centuries removed from the origins isn't relevant to the initial spread. Though again, I'm not sure if your obtuseness on this is genuine lack of comprehension or intellectual dishonesty.
Then please show me a source that Christianity was never violent throughout the first millennium, as per your claim. And the same to show that Islam was ALWAYS violent in the same time period.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,560
2,198
44
San jacinto
✟172,121.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A person needing to take a bathroom break is not an extraordinary claim. In fact, it's incredibly mundane. If you really believed what you say here, you'd also have to conclude that you can't be sure that I've ever gone to the bathroom.

But the claim that Jesus had followers who had seen him perform many miracles is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires much more extraordinary evidence.
You seem to misunderstand evidential burdens, because how "extraordinary" a claim is isn't relevant, and setting different evidential burdens for claims you find implausible is nothing but invoking special pleading. It's a common form of fallacious thinking, where the actual meaning of the maxim revolves around evidence it isn't true vs evidence it is true, and for claims like the resurrection or other miracles are bound to get caught up in worldview assumptions.
 
Upvote 0