IAP Political Forum

I'm reading this book right now (Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman) and it is fascinating. I knew that the Bible had a checkered history of fits and starts and edits, but not to the degree it really was patched together and heavily editted throughout time.

The earlist manuscript is almost 200 years after the death of Jesus. It is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.... and noone knows what is closer to the original, since we cna't compare it.

For example, there were numerous additions by scribes who didn't like the way things were written, or they made a mistake, or they tried to improve the writing.  Mark actually ends with the women running away: they never tell anyone about Jesus not being in the tomb - but scribes thought it ended badly and added a different ending.  This changes the theology immensly, since Mark has priority over the other texts (they copied from Mark and Q).

Not only that, but most Xian's who headed the church knew about it and often complained. Origen commmented that the Xians seemed like they were drunk when they copied the text since there were so many errors.

I'll add the specifics in a bit.  I am going to highlight my Bible with the real text and see how it reads.

Why the real bible is not available to the masses is disappointing.  All you can get today is the propaganda written by the early church. They have obscured the truth so much that we will never know what happened.

I'm excited about this topic, you definatly should reply when you have more info cuz I'm very interested in the actual history of the Bible.

I think anyone who is familiar with your position would say you most likely think NOTHING happened....is this where this is headed?

That is the interesting thing about life and this world, in everything there is that element of uncertainty.  I would be lying if I didn't question mans interpretation of the Bible myself.  If I didn't notice some things that didn't seem quite right.  But really regardless of that we are where we are now and if we do claim to believe and we do claim to follow then we must chose that God will redeem the errors of man and their inadequesties. 

No, I am saying we'll never know. It's impossible. It's lost to history.  Gone. Dead to our world.  Eternally out of reach.  Unknowable, unprovable, untestable, unreliable, unverifiable.

Suggesting that we don't know and claiming we will never know is a far cry from claiming the current bible is not "real Bible".

However when you consider the available physical evidence (fragments and partial manuscripts) plus corroborating evidence (Christian tradition, recorded testimonials, and historical accounts) all of this points to a Bible that shows very little sign of intentional alteration and only a minor amount of unintended transcription related edits.  How do you counter this hard evidence?  Does induction based on form criticism trump physical evidence? 

Isn't this true about a great many things?

I read the book over a year ago.  Not sure what the big deal is, except perhaps that it does go a long way to showing there was indeed a Jesus figure, who was treated as a historic reality and misquoted.  :-\

So is someone telling us that an actual historical figure was misquoted (which can only happen if the person existed), or that no such person existed, therefore the book itself is a waste of time.  ;D

Why do they always paint themselves in a corner.

It's not my claim a Jesus figure didn't exist. I propose, though, that the mythology has filled in the many gaps that were created in leiu of actual facts.

As you may be aware, some people take the quotes of Jesus as the gospel, and don't for a minute consider them unreliable.  I am simply presenting the more sober ;), rational view.

I wonder what is the basis for your proposal?  Is it prejudice or do you have evidence?  In an earlier response you said "we'll never know" [because the evidence is missing], which indicates your proposal is based on presupposition.

It is hard to understand how one should consider your view based on presupposition and prejudice more rational than one based on the direct and corroborating evidence.  Perhaps you can help us understand.

If someone wants to read the "original" bible, should read the hebrew version, not any other translation, since translation from hebrew deteriorates the original written meaning.

There are some geniuses, called Kabalists, who already deciphered the code written in the Bible (or otherwise called Torah). I wish I could have had the time to do that myself, probably I would be rich by now.

I am sure there are a great deal of interpretations that could be placed different versus.  I would be more convinced if they were pro actively predicting things rather than tying things into prior occurrances.

Sure, we all have presuppositions. Mine is that we can make informed decisions based on inductive reasoning. You reject this, since you you prefer to think you live in a cartoon universe.

You have yet to produce the names of the people you claim are eyewitnesses, and you have yet to show the original manuscripts.

You have only offered your religious view on the matter.  We get it - you believe Jesus is your personal lord and saviour. Many people believe this. You are a religious person.  We get it. We understand you prefer apologetics over critical thinking.


The issue I am trying to discuss is the real formation of the mythology of Xianity. I am interested in the actual events of how Xianity started as a backwater cult and grew into a massive, bloated religion.  I am interested in the mythical themes that crept into the religion over the centuries leading to a Trinitarian view some 3-400 years after the death of Jesus. And how the Bible was formed through the editing and voting of religious people who possessed nothing more than a presupposition that they knew the "mind of god".

You have yet to show us a document that Julius Ceaser exists.  Yet to name the people or an original manuscript showing the existence.

Or do you only hold those standards for people you disagree with?  :sleepy:

I know you are new to logic, so I will talk slow.

I didn't make the claim that Julius Ceaser existed, others have made that claim and the many artifacts tend to support the assertion, but more importantly, we know leaders of countries exist, and many are mythologized. Moreover, I have little reason to believe he didn't exist.

It is not an extraordinary claim to say "there was a leader of a country".  I only need to accept the claim in so far as it doesn't contradict other basoic laws of nature - like coming back from the dead.

Perhaps you can try to tell us if you see a difference in the claims between a ruler and a so-called god?  And while you are fumbling through that, you can tell us why you may not (for I have no idea how gullible you are) believe the extraordinary claims that Ceasar was a god, or some of the other outlandish myths that infiltrated the history?

I know this is philosophy 101, but it bears repeating for our newbie here.


So, there are two questions directed at you. Can you answer them?

OK lets look at the cop out.

"You didn't make the claim Julius Ceaser existed".

So do you believe that Julius Ceaser existed?

Care to show us original documentation?

It will be much easier to show that Ceaser existed since he was a world leader over the largest empire at that time.

But we have no real documentation beyond a bust or two that are claimed to be Ceasers.  We have witnesses who tell us of Ceaser.

But if you really pushed it, you would accept Ceaser's existence, basically on faith, either on the witnesses who wrote of him or your own faith.... Hmmmm...

It IS EXTRAORDINARY to say that a person exists, that the person was the most powerful leader of his time.  But that somehow you can't find any original documentation that applies to him.

Now, we turn to a small corner of a great empire where no documentation exists, of a man who was not a world ruler, who belonged to asmall limited sect and never traveled more than a few miles from his home as an adult.

And yet people were witnesses swore they saw him do things, and that even when threatened with death and later killed, refused to deny it.

I would suggest that you are the one who is "new to logic".  More to the point that you have shown your proclivity for boxing yourself into a corner and then trying to insult your way out.

Is there a large difference between the claims that a ruler exist, but there is no original documentation of his existence, and a person claiming to be god existed, but there is no original documentation of his existence.

A hundred years ago Troy did not exist.  Now it does.

Was it magic?   

B, what the hell are you claiming? That if there are historic claims of someone, then we should believe them?

Honestly, you are like a bull in a china shop the way you argue your Straw Men.

Or, are you saying that the evidence for Jesus is convincing because he was such a minor figure?

Really, instead of arguing agianst what you think I claim, why don't you propose something?

Or, is that not your chess game? You just wipe the board clear, set up the pieces as you wish, and play with yourself?

Hmmm....

Still no content.

So what do I respond to.... the insults?

Do you believe that Julius Ceaser existed?

You have yet to show us a document that Julius Ceaser exists.  Yet to name the people or an original manuscript showing the existence.

Or do you only hold those standards for people you disagree with? 



Perhaps you don't believe Julius Ceaser existed?

Simple question, though I am sure you don't like the implications.  :-X

Huh? What implications? THat I have to accept that a Jesus existed, or God in Man Skin walked the Earth?

I tend to believe that a Jesus existed, as I do a Julius Ceasar. I could be wrong about both, but I don't think so.

What I am trying to figure out is why you think you have such a powerful argument?

I really think you think I deny that a Jesus existed. I am convinced of the evidence that there was a figure that inspired people to make him an exalted figure.

There were many people like that - John the Baptist, for one. And many outside Xinaity.


So, what was your point, B? ;)  Or, are you done? Spent?





btw, I wonder if you would care to exend the analogy?  THe stories of Julius were changed, altered and mythologized. Many of his quotes can't be directly attributed to him, or verified. His divinity is in question.

I imagine your line of reasoning will lead you to the same conclusion with Jesus.

Do you hold the same standard for historians as you do for christians?

In other words do you believe Ceaser existed?  If so, you claim to want to see original documentation, and yet you cannot do the same for much better known or certainly, theoretically better documented historical persons such as Julius Ceaser.

I am merely point out your inconsistency, and you are left sputtering and insulting me.  Perhaps you cannot understand the reasoning and so you claim there is no reasoning involved?

What a coincidence no?

B, please, try to lay out your argument so I can see what it is you are trying to say.

Again, even without the contemporary testimony from various authors, even enemies, that the Jesus story suffers from, I still am willing to accept that Jesus existed.  THat is not to say, though, that the implication is the same, or the evidence equal.

Certainly, someone of your erudition should know this!

Just because I accept these people existed doesn't mean I have to accept every claim made of them.

Do you?

Every claim made of Jesus depends on your belief system or faith doesn't it?  You have one faith, someone else has another.

I am simply pointing out that you cannot know whether the information is accurate or not since the records, beyond the testimony of witnesses is all we have.  Now given the witnesses chose death before denial must have some impact don't you think?

I merely point out that the same standard should apply in all cases, and you should not let your prejudice against christianity undermine a fair and ethical standard for all involved.

Nothing more, sorry if that was too complicated for you to grasp.

If you can't know whether the information is accurate, why do you leap to a conclusion?  Because some martyrs died and it was reported (by the church) that they died without recanting?

You would think that after 9/11 most people would understand the mind of a religious zealot, and their ability to warp reality in their own minds.


btw, it's "testimony of ANONYMOUS witnesses is all we have". And there is no original document. THe earliest document is many generations later, and many changes have been PROVEN to have happened.

For all the alleged eviednce you have, there is mounds evidence against.  Not to mention the wild claim of resurrection, virgin birth, etc.  Even by historic standards, the life of Jesus is poorly accounted for.

I have no problem with inductive reasoning except when you and your form critics base that induction on presupposition.  It is a sham since the conclusions follow directly from your presuppositions.


The names are contained in the historical documents and all the early manuscripts that have been located are well cataloged and annotated.  You know this already since we have spoken about it in the past.


On this question, I do not rely on my opinions, rather I refer to the physical evidence to support the conclusion that Christianity did not develop as a legend might.  The artifacts and antiquities. These writings corroborate the tradition that is well established and demonstrates that it has not undergone legendary evolution.  I ask you to provide the same quality of physical evidence that counters the evidence already cataloged.  This is the way historical proofs are constructed.  Instead you offer a prejudicial conclusion masquerading as form critique of biblical text.


I see that.  However if you wish to converge on the real and true formation of Christian tradition then you should follow the evidence wherever it takes you.  You can't do this when you instead begin with presupposition, avoid the physical evidence and instead rely completely on induction by way of form critical analysis. You bring in other vaguely similar  traditions without any evidence that they are related.   This is not a good way to find truth.

You claim miracles happen. THat babies can have elephany heads grafted onto them and live, that men can rise from death and walk on water.

That negates any induction you might use. For example, you can't look at a watch on a beach and assume it was designed, since it is just as likely that it popped into existence by a Magic Man, or that the perception of the beach is clouded by your Gods Will to only see the watch.

All things are possible in your Cartoon World. You have admitted as much when you allow for the virgin birth, resurrection, Flood, Jonah and the whale, ID, etc.

These things are miracles because they destroy induction. They do not follow given what we observe from the universe.

The earliest manuscripts are copies of copies of copies and not eyewitness testimonies. Thats why they are so wildly different. They are anonymous.

For you to claim otherwise is false and misleading.

There were many traditions in Xianity. Some believed there were 2 gods, some had 365 gods - all called themselves Xian and based it on gospels from the "eyewitnesses". There was no NT until 2-300 years after your convicted criminal was executed.

What physical evidence? Supernatural evidence? Are you going to use your "Inductive" reasoning?

The FACT is that there were hundreds of documents written about Jesus and most of them don't tell the same story. They picked four gospels because there were four corners of the Earth. They rejected other because of their presuppositions, because of their bias towards one story or another.

If you read Mark, it is a very different Jesus than Luke or Matthew even though they were copying from MArk. Why? Because they were like Dan Brown, they wanted to tell their own story about the mythical events of Jesus. (That is, Jesus may have existed, but they made their own stories about him - just like many figures in history, or all god figures in mythology).

Consider Mark. Jesus was scared and silent on the way to Golgotha, when he died he cried and wailed about god forsaking him. the original gospel ends with an empty tomb and the women running away - never saying anything to anyone.

it just ends.  Jesus dead, no body in the tomb.

The other gospel writers, or scribes, added the sightings afterwards. (Paul simply saw a "vision" (a bright light))

Luke and Matthew embellish the text and scribes add more to the tale.

It's all in the evidence.

Maybe Satan wrote it to decieve me?

Speaking of Satan, the best lies are those with a little truth in them. Of course, Mark makes the point that Jesus is risen. The stone has been rolled away and an angel advises the three women “He has risen! He is not here” (Mk. 16: 6) 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 is actually the first written account of Jesus’ resurrection, not any of the Gospels. We’d have to assume that Mark felt that he’d made his point and that the Resurrection was accepted knowledge at that time.

Daedalus you have ignored so many of Reasoned Faith's responses and questions, and just continue to steam roll along, throwing out any skeptical question that pops into your head. You are not even attempting to have a serious dialog. It's clear that you have spent alot of time on skeptical websites but why not start a skeptic's blog rather than this pretense of trying to look like you are having a discussion with the Christian posters?

 

OK, here is the first installment of points from the book.

Chapters:
The Beginnings of Xian Scripture
The Copyists of the Early Xian Writings
Texts of the New Testament (Editions, Manuscripts and Differences)
The Quest for origins (Methods and Discoveries)
Originals that Matter
Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text
Conclusion: Changing Scripture (Scribes, Authors and Readers).

In a way, religion hasn't changed at all. We are still a polytheistic society, just like it was in the days of Early Xinanity. Though rare, it was, however, not uncommon to come across monotheistic religions, in which the religious person rejected other gods of other peoples beliefs. The Jewish religion was one such religion. They not only believed they were specially chosen by this god they created, but believed that other people were godless and not in favor of their god. You were either the Chosen and the Damned.

There was only one Temple in Judaism. While you could pray to god from any location there was a "Corporate Headquarters" in Jerusalem. The sattelite offices were known as synagogues.

Almost unique to Judaism was that they wrote down their social laws and stories together in their books, whereas other religions primarily kept the tradition orally (though some did write down their philosophies, histories, etc., there were few other religions that wrote them down as part of the religious tradition.)

Judaism was rare in that it tried to codify religious thinking based on the actions of forefathers. They tried to create an orthodoxed view of religious - "this is the right way to think of, pray to, worship god and act to find favor from God".  (Orthodox = "right doctrine")

Primarily, they relied on the Torah ("law, guidance") which was written as if Moses wrote it and was inspired by God. It consists of the Pentateuch, ("five scrolls"): Genesis. Exodus., Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

There were other important books for the Jews, but these are the ones that are most important for the backdrop of Xianity, since Jesus was a Rabbi, he would have carried on the "bookish" tradition of Judaism.

As you can see, the basis of Xianity is rooted in the dogmatic claims of one small aspect of Judaism. The creation story, the whole concept of one god (though, as we see later, many early Xian writings added gods), etc.

Xinaity began as a religion of the book, of the Jewish texts. It started with the presupposition that the Jewish religion was the only correct one - and then they proceeded to find fault with it. oh, the irony...

---------------

Paul: He is the guy who really started it all.  He never met Jesus, but felt he had in visions. The earliest and best writings of Xianity are from the lettters of Paul.  He was a well-read Jew who went around to urban centers trying to convince people to his interpretation of the texts of the Torah that supported the view that "the Jewish God is the only one to be worshipped,that Jesus is his Son, who had dies for the sins of the world and would return for judgement".

After Paul had convinced a few people he would move on, thus establishing a "church".  But, as he would move to a new city he would hear of problems in the churches. They would have a problem with interpretation, or they would start to create their own interpretation, or other people would try to convince them of different teachings.  Paul would have to write lettrs back to those churches to tell them how they should think.  Thirteen of these are included in the NT.

The first letter that we know of (Thessalonians) is dated about 49 C.E. - 20 years after Jesus's death, and some 20 years before any account of Jesus' life, attesting to the idea that the teaching of Jesus were circulating but that Paul was the most successful in spreading his version.  Some other letters by other Xian teachers are added in the NT.

As we can see, the Jewish tradition of having authority figures dictating orthodoxy is part of Xianity already - or rather, Xianity is simply an extension of Judaism and the authoritarian model. (Whereas other religions were based on personal philosophies - which, as we see later, Xianity becomes. Another irony.).

It is suspected that many of Paul's letters were written by his later followers since, as expected, people would listen to writings that claimed to be of an established authority figure before some guy who claimed to be a friend of the uncle of a guy who knew Paul.

Ehrman stresses that Xianity relies on the written word; the writing of these letters explaing the finer points of orthodoxy and this leads to his larger point of the book - that editting the text was important to refine the message (if you were interested in aligning the text more ot your liking) or that changes in the text undermine the original orthodoxy and change forever Xianity.

-------------
Early Gospels
-------------
Obviously, Xians were most interested in the life and times of Jesus, so gospels (accounts of Jesus's life) were written.  Many were written. Aside from the four that were votrd into the NT, there were gospels written by jesus's brother (yes, that's right, Jesus's brother didn't get his account of his own brother's life into the Bible), Philip (a disciple) and Mary Magdalene (Jesus's girlfriend).

The earliest gospels are lost. We know they existed because other gospels refer to them (Luke refers to many predecessors).  One original is probably the Q document - a bunch of sayings of Jesus that was probably in circulation at the time, but for some reason did not survive.

The writers of Matthew and Luke probably had a copy, as well as a copy of Mark.


As we see, Paul interpreted Jesus's life in light of Jewish scripture. Already, the filtering was beginning and Paul, who never met Jesus, was interpreetting life events that would be meaningful in terms of Jewish orthodoxy.  These Jewish scriptures included the Torah, but also Prophets and Psalms and the Septuagint which were in wide circulation.

------------
Early Acts of the Apostles
--------------------------
Also of interest to early Xians was the lives and acts of Jesus's followers, the Apostles.  These were written anonymously and were in wide circulation as people became interested in Christology, and more interested in what they should believe about their religion.

I will skip ahead a bit, but in this chapter Ehrman breifly covers the following Xian writings:
Xian Apocalypses, Church Orders, Xian Apologetics (see 1 Peter 3:15), Xian Martyrologies (about the 2nd century), Antiherteical tractates (which was one church defending itself against the teachings/position of another Xian church), and Early Xian Commentaries.




Next: the Formation of the Xian Canon.

of course, Paul didn't believe in a bodily resurrection.

Paul wouldn't have had Mark in front of him when he wrote 1 Cor and he was interpretting it according to Jewish Scriptures. mark would have been written in response to the teaching available, which would have included the writings of Paul.

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression: that Mark is an actual eyewitness account and he implied that Jesus wan't resurrected.  He was obviously interested in supporting the religious claims of Jesus, et al.

I am trying to say that he didn't say that Jesus was resurrected and walked among us, but that - according to Jewish tradition - that he (like other important Jewish figures) dissapeared. (Rose to heaven).

Which is rather nebulous, since considering that the spirit would have left Jesus's body, they would have said his "breath" or "spirit" has risen. He was no longer there, though his body could have been.  It's easy to see how later teaching would have been easier to say "he rose to heaven".

But, I am not interested in debating whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, but interested in how the mythology grew and developed.  (Just as I am not interested in whether or not Santa makes his rounds in one night, but how the myhology developed).

I didn't make these claims.  i simply note that others have and then they have provided testimony and corroborating evidence. Since I have not made these claims, would you grant me permission to use inductive reasoning?


How odd, those who recorded the events claimed to have observed them in this world.


It is false and misleading for you to claim they are wildly different and anonymous.  Wild and different from what?  What evidence do you have that they are different than what the apostles taught and recorded?  They are corroborated by Christian historians with direct lines to the authors.


What evidence from 33AD to 115AD (first direct corroboration for the existence of the Gospels) do you have to support this claim?


How do you account for the fragments and partial manuscripts dating from 70AD through 180AD?


The fragments and partial manuscripts and the corroborating writings from 105AD onward.


Since you claim this as fact, please provide me a list of documents written about Jesus between 33AD and 105AD when Christian historians validated the existence of the Gospels and letters to the Churches.  Please be prepared to validate the dates.

The balance of your post simply launches into form critical analysis of the Bible text which you filter through your prejudice. I see no reason to respond to it.

RF, many people claim a lot of things. Since you have not witnessed any miracles (any event that contradicts material mechanisms) you would not being using induction to accept these claims of supernaturalism, you would be contradicting it.

I seriously can't believe that you might be suggesting that once the claim is made, you start from zero and THEN introduce reasoning.

Excuse me for thinking this is Supremely naive.

OK, here is the first installment of points from the book.

Chapters:
The Beginnings of Xian Scripture
The Copyists of the Early Xian Writings
Texts of the New Testament (Editions, Manuscripts and Differences)
The Quest for origins (Methods and Discoveries)
Originals that Matter
Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text
Conclusion: Changing Scripture (Scribes, Authors and Readers).

In a way, religion hasn't changed at all. We are still a polytheistic society, just like it was in the days of Early Xinanity. Though rare, it was, however, not uncommon to come across monotheistic religions, in which the religious person rejected other gods of other peoples beliefs. The Jewish religion was one such religion. They not only believed they were specially chosen by this god they created, but believed that other people were godless and not in favor of their god. You were either the Chosen and the Damned.

There was only one Temple in Judaism. While you could pray to god from any location there was a "Corporate Headquarters" in Jerusalem. The sattelite offices were known as synagogues.

Almost unique to Judaism was that they wrote down their social laws and stories together in their books, whereas other religions primarily kept the tradition orally (though some did write down their philosophies, histories, etc., there were few other religions that wrote them down as part of the religious tradition.)

Judaism was rare in that it tried to codify religious thinking based on the actions of forefathers. They tried to create an orthodoxed view of religious - "this is the right way to think of, pray to, worship god and act to find favor from God".  (Orthodox = "right doctrine")

Primarily, they relied on the Torah ("law, guidance") which was written as if Moses wrote it and was inspired by God. It consists of the Pentateuch, ("five scrolls"): Genesis. Exodus., Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

There were other important books for the Jews, but these are the ones that are most important for the backdrop of Xianity, since Jesus was a Rabbi, he would have carried on the "bookish" tradition of Judaism.

As you can see, the basis of Xianity is rooted in the dogmatic claims of one small aspect of Judaism. The creation story, the whole concept of one god (though, as we see later, many early Xian writings added gods), etc.

Xinaity began as a religion of the book, of the Jewish texts. It started with the presupposition that the Jewish religion was the only correct one - and then they proceeded to find fault with it. oh, the irony...

---------------

Paul: He is the guy who really started it all.  He never met Jesus, but felt he had in visions. The earliest and best writings of Xianity are from the lettters of Paul.  He was a well-read Jew who went around to urban centers trying to convince people to his interpretation of the texts of the Torah that supported the view that "the Jewish God is the only one to be worshipped,that Jesus is his Son, who had dies for the sins of the world and would return for judgement".

After Paul had convinced a few people he would move on, thus establishing a "church".  But, as he would move to a new city he would hear of problems in the churches. They would have a problem with interpretation, or they would start to create their own interpretation, or other people would try to convince them of different teachings.  Paul would have to write lettrs back to those churches to tell them how they should think.  Thirteen of these are included in the NT.

The first letter that we know of (Thessalonians) is dated about 49 C.E. - 20 years after Jesus's death, and some 20 years before any account of Jesus' life, attesting to the idea that the teaching of Jesus were circulating but that Paul was the most successful in spreading his version.  Some other letters by other Xian teachers are added in the NT.

As we can see, the Jewish tradition of having authority figures dictating orthodoxy is part of Xianity already - or rather, Xianity is simply an extension of Judaism and the authoritarian model. (Whereas other religions were based on personal philosophies - which, as we see later, Xianity becomes. Another irony.).

It is suspected that many of Paul's letters were written by his later followers since, as expected, people would listen to writings that claimed to be of an established authority figure before some guy who claimed to be a friend of the uncle of a guy who knew Paul.

Ehrman stresses that Xianity relies on the written word; the writing of these letters explaing the finer points of orthodoxy and this leads to his larger point of the book - that editting the text was important to refine the message (if you were interested in aligning the text more ot your liking) or that changes in the text undermine the original orthodoxy and change forever Xianity.

-------------
Early Gospels
-------------
Obviously, Xians were most interested in the life and times of Jesus, so gospels (accounts of Jesus's life) were written.  Many were written. Aside from the four that were votrd into the NT, there were gospels written by jesus's brother (yes, that's right, Jesus's brother didn't get his account of his own brother's life into the Bible), Philip (a disciple) and Mary Magdalene (Jesus's girlfriend).

The earliest gospels are lost. We know they existed because other gospels refer to them (Luke refers to many predecessors).  One original is probably the Q document - a bunch of sayings of Jesus that was probably in circulation at the time, but for some reason did not survive.

The writers of Matthew and Luke probably had a copy, as well as a copy of Mark.


As we see, Paul interpreted Jesus's life in light of Jewish scripture. Already, the filtering was beginning and Paul, who never met Jesus, was interpreetting life events that would be meaningful in terms of Jewish orthodoxy.  These Jewish scriptures included the Torah, but also Prophets and Psalms and the Septuagint which were in wide circulation.

------------
Early Acts of the Apostles
--------------------------
Also of interest to early Xians was the lives and acts of Jesus's followers, the Apostles.  These were written anonymously and were in wide circulation as people became interested in Christology, and more interested in what they should believe about their religion.

I will skip ahead a bit, but in this chapter Ehrman breifly covers the following Xian writings:
Xian Apocalypses, Church Orders, Xian Apologetics (see 1 Peter 3:15), Xian Martyrologies (about the 2nd century), Antiherteical tractates (which was one church defending itself against the teachings/position of another Xian church), and Early Xian Commentaries.




Next: the Formation of the Xian Canon.

Poor barney, he cannot even copy and inform properly.

He thinks the book is wonderful, and its a great book and I am sure he will copy entire passages.   ;D  And yet he can't bring himself to use the same wording that the author (he praises so fully).  Nor can he bring himself to acknowledge that Ehrman is NOT an atheist . He still believes in divinity, though he is less sanguine than most as to the form of that divinity.  Now barney will call it cowardice to state you are looking for the truth but believe there is some kind of divinity (he hates it when he can't call you a christian or spit upon you in some way, it show the good side of the atheist nature?  I hope not, but then he could be a powerless Stalin now couldn't he  :P ).

Unlike poor barney, I actually have sat in on Ehrman's lectures (Chapel Hill), he has a higher octave voice, but he is also open and engaging and willing to field questions.  I like the guy.

Barney is reduced to copying and pasting and missing context (his normal plight) and he doesn't realize that Ehrman (he apparently can't read the book for what it is) speaks in depth on the question of changing context and history, in "Misquoting Jesus" and does not delve into the divinity of the same.

I am sure barney will now sputter and spout.

But in he end, he will remain ignorant of the issues, and he will grasp, at literally anything and still not understand what is going on around him.  Lets hope they didn't train him that way in architecture.  :laugh:

OK, here is the first installment of points from the book.

Chapters:
The Beginnings of Xian Scripture
The Copyists of the Early Xian Writings
Texts of the New Testament (Editions, Manuscripts and Differences)
The Quest for origins (Methods and Discoveries)
Originals that Matter
Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text
Conclusion: Changing Scripture (Scribes, Authors and Readers).

In a way, religion hasn't changed at all. We are still a polytheistic society, just like it was in the days of Early Xinanity. Though rare, it was, however, not uncommon to come across monotheistic religions, in which the religious person rejected other gods of other peoples beliefs. The Jewish religion was one such religion. They not only believed they were specially chosen by this god they created, but believed that other people were godless and not favored by their god. You were either the Chosen or the Damned.

There was only one Temple in Judaism. While you could pray to god from any location there was a "Corporate Headquarters" in Jerusalem. The sattelite offices were known as synagogues.

Almost unique to Judaism was that they wrote down their social laws and stories together in their books, whereas other religions primarily kept the tradition orally (though some did write down their philosophies, histories, etc., there were few other religions that wrote them down as part of the religious tradition.)

Judaism was rare in that it tried to codify religious thinking based on the actions of forefathers. They tried to create an orthodoxed view of religious rituals and acts - "this is the right way to think of, pray to and worship God, And this is the right way to act to find favor from God".  (Orthodox = "right doctrine")

Primarily, they relied on the Torah ("law, guidance") which was written as if Moses wrote it and was inspired by God. It consists of the Pentateuch, ("five scrolls"): Genesis. Exodus., Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

There were other important books for the Jews, but the above are the ones that are most important for the backdrop of Xianity.  Since Jesus was a Rabbi, he would have carried on the "bookish" tradition of Judaism.

As you can see, the basis of Xianity is rooted in the dogmatic claims of one small aspect of Judaism. The creation story, the whole concept of one god (though, as we see later, many early Xian writings added gods), etc.

Xinaity began as a religion of the book, of the Jewish texts. It started with the presupposition that the Jewish religion was the only correct one - and then they proceeded to find fault with it. oh, the irony...

---------------

Paul: He is the guy who really started it all.  He never met Jesus, but felt he had in visions. The earliest and best writings of Xianity are from the lettters of Paul.  He was a well-read Jew who went around to urban centers trying to convince people of his interpretation of the texts of the Torah that supported the view that "the Jewish God is the only one to be worshipped,that Jesus is his Son, who had died for the sins of the world and would return for judgement".

After Paul had convinced a few people to pick up the Jesus banner, he would move on, thus establishing a "church".  But, as he would move to a new city he would hear of problems in those churches. They would have a problem with interpretation, or they would start to create their own interpretation, or other people would try to convince them of different teachings.  Paul would have to write lettrs back to those churches to tell them how they should think.  Thirteen of these are included in the NT.

The first letter that we know of (Thessalonians) is dated about 49 C.E. - 20 years after Jesus's death, and some 20 years before any account of Jesus' life, attesting to the idea that many of the teachings of Jesus were circulating by other authors, too. Paul, however, was the most successful in spreading his version.  Some other letters by other Xian teachers are added in the NT.

As we can see, the Jewish tradition of having authority figures dictating orthodoxy is part of Xianity already - or rather, Xianity is simply an extension of Judaism and the authoritarian model. (Whereas other religions were based on personal philosophies - which, as we see later, Xianity becomes. Another irony.).

It is suspected that many of Paul's letters were written by his later followers since, as expected, people would listen to writings that claimed to be from an established authority figure before some guy who claimed to be a friend of the uncle of a guy who knew Paul.

Ehrman stresses that Xianity relies on the written word; the writing of these letters explaing the finer points of orthodoxy and this leads to his larger point of the book - that editting the text was important to refine the message (if you were interested in aligning the text more ot your liking) or that changes in the text undermine the original orthodoxy and change forever Xianity.

-------------
Early Gospels
-------------
Obviously, Xians were most interested in the life and times of Jesus, so gospels (accounts of Jesus's life) were written.  Many were written by many diffrent authors. Aside from the four that were votrd into the NT, there were gospels written by jesus's brother (yes, that's right, Jesus's brother didn't get his account of his own brother's life into the Bible), Philip (a disciple) and Mary Magdalene (Jesus's girlfriend).

The earliest gospels are lost. We know they existed because other gospels refer to them (Luke refers to many predecessors).  One original document is probably the Q document - a bunch of sayings of Jesus that was probably in circulation at the time, but for some reason did not survive.

The writers of Matthew and Luke probably had a copy of Q, as well as a copy of Mark.


As we see, Paul interpreted Jesus's life in light of Jewish scripture. Already, the filtering was beginning and Paul, who never met Jesus, was interpreetting life events that would be meaningful in terms of Jewish orthodoxy.  These Jewish scriptures included the Torah, but also Prophets and Psalms and the Septuagint which were in wide circulation.

------------
Early Acts of the Apostles
--------------------------
Also of interest to early Xians was the lives and acts of Jesus's followers, the Apostles.  These were written anonymously and were in wide circulation as people became interested in Christology, and more interested in what they should believe about their religion.

I will skip ahead a bit, but in this chapter Ehrman breifly covers the following Xian writings:
Xian Apocalypses, Church Orders, Xian Apologetics (see 1 Peter 3:15), Xian Martyrologies (about the 2nd century), Antiherteical tractates (which was one church defending itself against the teachings/position of another Xian church), and Early Xian Commentaries.




Next: the Formation of the Xian Canon.

How does it make sense for this author to at once to claim we don't know what the "real bible" said because it supposedly has been lost and therefore by association not know what Jesus said, but then claim that Jesus has been misquoted?

Not that I want to defend Ehrman, but he states that Jesus is misquoted, not because he has seen the original quotes, rather there are so many quotes attributed that many quotes can be equally attributed with but one being the correct one.  In his view we don't know which is the correct one.  However Ehrman is not an atheist, rather he does believe there is a divine power and hopes to find it.  Is he a Christian?  He generally refuses to entertain question publically, but privately (and I am out on the limb on this one) he thinks the truth is out there and there is a possibility to find it through rigorous academic research.

Kind of puts barney in a conundrum.  Here is a man he gleefully quoting the passages of a man that is academically attempting to understand Christ and early Christianity, but who has rejected barney and his view of atheism.

So is barney rejecting the view he has espoused or is barney using tainted material (from his atheistic point of view) to present an idea.  For barney to truly understand the book "Misquoting Jesus", he must first reject the notion that there is no historicity for christianity, which is something he has claimed.

Yes, it is interesting.  So, tell me does Erhman equate paraphrasing as equal to misquoting or does he claim that the words attributed to Jesus are contradictory and therefore one or more must be a misquote. 

Was it common in that age and society to quote people precisely or was it customary to paraphrase?

He has a very interesting take on it.  Paraphrasing was sometimes done and it soemtimes changed the context and meaning of the scripture depending on what the scribe wanted to say versus what the scripture wanted to say.

I understand that some Catholic scribes who lacked the jewish tradition of strict adherence to exact transcription made edits and others who thought they could improve clarity and understanding did also.  Also paraphrasing occurred when the text was translated from one language to another and then back again.  Since  current Bibles disregard these edits and are based on the oldest manuscripts and the best continual line of manuscripts, these changes don't impact and never have impacted doctrine.  I wonder what information the author has to claim that the oldest manuscripts misquote Jesus.

The very fact that there are misquotes, perhaps? Some scribes DID misquote Jesus and since you don't have the original, you can only pretend to know what the original said.

Perhaps you have witnessed Jesus as Paul had, and he told you (as Paul also claims).

For example, was Jesus filled with anger or pity towards the leper? It certainly changes the attitude of Jesus - though I'm sure you have an explanation that will fit your view, regardless.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there, it bleeds into every aspect of the Bible, but Fundi's simply accept the Bible as true.

First off "fundis" as you call them, don't all accept every word in the Bible as being true.  I know some that do not, in fact they seek academically rigorous research to understand meaning as well as simple word copy.

Secondly, "fundis" as you call them make up a very very small percentage of christianity.  Leaving a much larger portion that is even more open to the question of error.

Given those two facts, you have no argument here.

You know some as in three? Or how many?

The bottom line is that fundis believe every word in the bible is the truth. Thats what being a fundi is all about. DUH.

Whole church of them down the street.  So it seems your view is based more on your bigotry and hatred than reality.

Sure, a whole church down the street. Right... They're sub-fundis. LOL.


How come you want to redefine what a Christian fundi is? Seems to me its another pathetic attempt to try and make it look like Christians are not delusional freaks. LOL, keep trying son.

Hardly what I would call an official document of all fundamentalists.  Given they don't have a heirarchy, you pretty much has a statement made by one person that points to all of these other groups and makes the claim, without any real documentation to back it up.

You're right, its not an official document of all fundis. That's the great thing about Christianity, there isn't anything official about it. They can "believe" whatever makes them feel good. Just like you do everyday. The funny part about all of it is that each of the zillion or so brands of Christianity think they've got it right. 

FYI, that quote I posted was from the Oxford encyclopedia. Britannica says the same thing too. You should write to them and tell them they're wrong because your wacky sub-fundi friends down the street don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for three days.

Maybe I should start a new thread about what all Christians agree on? Is there anything? I've read that some don't even believe Jesus was a real person. LOL

Maybe you should start a new thread on what christians agree on.

Maybe one day you boys will agree on what an agnostic is and what an atheist is too.  Or is there supposed be an "atheist central" somewhere that the faithful can go to get things cleared up.  ;)

bladar, this thread gives you an opportunity to expound upon your knowledge of the history of Xianity and Judaism. You have a chance to lay down facts.

Why do you feel all threads must be an attack on people? What are threatened by? Facts?

Why not give your side of the issue with links to support your view?  Why do you always refuse to be intellectual about things? Instead you always taking the emotional route.

Is it possible for you to post without ad hom's? Are you really this angry at the world?

Please, baldar, I know we have had our differences, but I am asking you to be reasonable and rational and contribute CONSTRUCTIVELY to a thread. 

The history of the Bible is a fascinating look into humanity, yet you act as if the slightest question of a relgion is hate mongering.  I know you will consider this a personal attack - as you seem to always do - but it is simply a request for you to act respectfully and maturely.

If it is true you have read the Bible is 3 languages, and studied it, then offer your interpretation and insight, instead of attacking other peoples comments on the Bible.  Even if I say the Bible isn't worth toilet paper, it isn't an attack on you, RF, or anyone else. It is a comment on an inanimate object.

More to the actual truth, if I say the Bible was written by anonymous people, was often editted, is unverifiable and mythology, that is not bigotry. It is not an attack on people. It is a comment on an inanimate object.

Stop being so overly PC and think you are running to rescue of people. We aren't attacking people. We are talking about the facts, evidence and events surrounding an inanimate object.

What historical evidence do you have that Paul didn't personally write these letters? 


Since the modern Bible is based on the oldest manuscripts and partial manuscripts, what amount of editing has crept into the modern Bible?  How can we know the oldest manuscripts contain edits?


Really?  You question the authorship of the actual Gospels but you accept that James, Philip and Mary M. certainly wrote the text some attributed to them?  The four Gospels were corroborated by early Christian historians who had direct lines back to the writers.  The ones that were rejected did not have sufficient corroborating evidence.

Why don't you tell me? It is a hotly disputed topic of your religion. I would think you would know all the issues, and then settle on the on the apologetics. 

How can you? How can you be sure of it at all? (btw, you are arguing from ignorance again)

No, I am pointing out that many were written and they could be wrong too. I am highlighting a different point of view that doesn't blindly accept unverifiable claims, as your previous questions suggest.

The fact is, if you accept the ones you do, why not the others? THey claim to be written by the authors - in fact they meet all the requirements that you accept the others.

Is it just because you accept the Nicene council?  Have you put your Faith in the inspired word, or Men who have voted on what it should be?

Have you read the other gospels? (be honest, god is watching)







http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm

There is no historical evidence to indicate Paul did not write the letters attributed to him.  The disputes all take root in form critical analysis based on a combination of presupposition, nontraditional interpretations and subjective analysis of perceived style variations.   


We have corroborating evidence from unbroken lines back to the claimed authors.  These sources indicate the writing is original and unchanged.  We have no evidence that contradicts this corroborating evidence.


They are not corroborated by external sources with direct lines back to the claimed writers.


I accept the traditions of the early Church over 200 years prior to the council.


I have read the ones often cited.  I do not know if I have read them all.  I only know of a few (less than five), but for some reason you have said there are hundreds.

Now I know that what I have quoted above ignores much of the conversation but just for the sake of clarity (as I didn't want to copy the whole text).

However it is indeed true that you (Reasonedfaith) are arguing from ignorance. Its like saying "What evidence do you have that a magical invisible ethereal goblin doesn't sit on my shoulder" (I am exaggerating a bit of course). Daedalus may have argued from ignorance as well which is just as equally fallicious but it doesn't mean that you can do it in order to find a reasonable solution.

Furthermore, I think when we are talking about any historical document we must take into consideration that it is arguably going to have had many changes throughout its existence. To say that men have not manipulated documents for their own ends, is to ignore human tendency. Now does this mean the Bible is still mostly accurate? Well I don't know, but the Bible is claimed to be the direct word of God. So if its the word of God, shouldn't it be 100% accurate? Then it is argued that God has only given the document to man in which case man has or may have corrupted it. If this true how can we trust it? And if it is true that it is 100% accurate how would we know?

One argument that is employed is that since God made it, its accurate because God can't lie, and therefore its all true. As any rational person can see, this is circular logic.

So this is where faith comes in (rational, irrational or not; I am using the dictionary definition of faith, and it is sad that I have to clarify this.)

My personal note is that faith is no real argument, though it could be argued that its a feeling and thus its empirical implications declare its truth, though that seems a bit shaky.

What a funny boy.


Why should one throw pearls before swine?



Why does the boy feel the need to attack other peoples belief systems?  There is no "feel" here.  The attacks are quite clear.  They are bigoted and irrational.



I rarely give much thought to the pleadings of bigots.  Its amazing how suddenly barney wants to be "constructive" after insulting people and their belief systems.  Call them crazy.... On supposes that "constructive" has a very different definition to the boy.  As for rational, we know he is in some outer universe where that word is concerned.  Is it rational to insult people for a belief system that they cannot prove and you cannot disprove?  Seems to me if you don't believe in it, it has no issue.  I am fine with muslims, jews, christians.  And yet here is barney boy, can't even call them "christians" but chooses to "x" out the name christ.  Now is that really rational or simply another irrational hurled insult?  Constructive and rational, how charming.


A lie?  One presumes so since barney refuses to acknowledge the historicity of the bible.  Like the word rational, one wonders at the boors attempts when he baits people and then runs away.  I question all religions, but I do not insult and denigrate them or their followers.  Barney, when will you stop lying and admit you have this problem?


What I find interesting is how quickly you forget the insults you have thrown out, you even called your own mother an idiot.  Amazing how quickly you forget.  But I am sure that is "rational" for you.  ;D

I loved the way you quoted or actually cut whole passages of the book and then find out that while Ehrman questions the historical accuracy, he certainly hasn't denounced the religion, one wonders if barney knows the difference between questioning history and denying it as he does?



What color is the sky in your world.  Poor barney isn't attacking people?  Poor barney isn't calling them idiots?  Poor barney doesn't make bigoted remarks about other peoples belief systems?  Oh poor barney.......

Really, chuckle, I had some good laughs.  But lets get serious, is it oedipile?  Do you hate for the cause of hating?  Or is it simply an ignorant knee jerk reaction from a relatively uneducated point of view? 


Why is it so hard for barney et al to discusss their own belief systems without attacking others?

Care to tell us why you edited out the rest of his post?  Some other quotes were cogent to the matter.

Specifically:



In other words you attempted to isolate his argument to make it appear as if he had been arguing from ignorance rather than showing the entire argument which asks barney to supply counter evidence to what he has provided.

If you really wanted to query a question, why did you do that?

I, of course, don't feel I am arguing from ignorance. We both don't know the truth, that is true, but my arguemnt is not "what else could it be", it is "the writing style suggests different authors (Paul wrote in Koine Greek, not in a sophisticated, philosophical Greek - remember, literary analysis is very accurate.), and the tradition shows that this happened." It is a hypothesis. Made by the RC church as well.( b4 someone accuses me of using Argument from Authority, it is valid to use experts on the matter in which they are experts in.)

btw, see this source:
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Overviews.htm#Acts

Consider this of the New Testament.
Of the 23 books other than the Gospels:
10 are anonymous
13 attributed to Paul (which many are disputed, even by the Roman Catholic church which is the only true Xian church).

The writers of the Gospels are also unknown, even though they are attributed to some names, we have no idea who those people were, any more than we know who wrote some of Plato's works, but ascribe them to him.

Of these works, only the four gospels are supposed eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life, even though John was written 60 -70 years after Jesus's death and provides accounts of Jesus's life IN THE APOCOLYPSE! :roll:.

Two (Matt. and Luke) obviously used Mark as a source and embellished, and Luke claims to be a student of Paul and wrote a generation later than Paul.

Mark has little commonality with any of the writings of Paul (no resurrection, no virgin birth only a claim that Jesus was divine.) And the inagural event for Mark was a exorcism. That is, a typical device used by charlatans.

Now, Paul was the first writer of the "Jesus Chronicles":
Four Main Phases of Paul's Missionary Activity (as mentioned under the "date" sections below): Phase I  early missionary work in the East (Syria & Cilicia), as assistant to the apostle Barnabas (ca. 35-49 CE)
Phase II initial missionary work in Macedonia and Achaia (esp. Corinth), with Silas & Timothy (ca. 50-53 CE)
Phase III mature missionary work in Asia (esp. Ephesus), with Timothy and many collaborators (ca. 54-57 CE)
Phase IV journey back to Jerusalem; arrest and travel to Rome; (later also Spain?); death in Rome (ca. 58-64 CE)

(Mark was written in 60-70)  So Paul was the first writings, but Paul never said he met Jesus. Odd.



So, the New Testament can be accurately described as a mention of Jesus in one work, some people picking up on it and adding to it, Paul's opinion of an idea of Jesus, and some other people who wrote after him.

As for the main character?  Good luck finding anything on him before Paul.


RF can harp on about historical evidence all he wants, but he does so because it is the last bastion od Xianity. The problem is, it makes all other religions equally true, too.

balder loves to accept unsubtantiated claims as fact, as long as it supports his faith.

Barney loves to assume he has his head out of his ass, but then, he can't seem to account for that strange smell.  :laugh:


Hmmm, care to tell me what my faith is since I am not a christian.

Your Faith is that you know what you are talking about; that you understand things. Your Faith is totally unsubstantiated and irrational. ;)

The problem with many Christians is that, when you attack their beliefs, they take these criticisms and attacks on their religion as a personal attack against them because they truly lack the ability to differentiate between the abstract belief and their personal identity. This is largely because the conception has been moulded into their selfhood. They cannot see the difference. Thus, an attack on it is an attack on them by association.

You see a similar phenomenon with Christian Fundamentalists when discussing evolution. They continually attack evolution as immoral or leading to "immorality" because they cannot separate normativism and descriptivism. Their "belief system" incorporates both into one package, thus they inherently believe ALL systems must be like that. It's the same problem of being unable to distinguish things. In one case, between the self and the belief and the other between normative and descriptive systems. They tie themselves to their package as they tie both morality and descriptivism to their ideology, unable to separate them.

This is very true. For some reason, you can attack a person for being a Republican, Liberal, Fascist, Democrat, etc, or for being a Madonna lover (and who hasn't!), or Mettalica fan, etc.

Basically, all is up for criticism except a persons religious belief.  This seems to attest to two things:

1. Religion is a personal and subjective and if people feel it is a personal attack, then they know they have only justified it internally and taken the claims on Faith
2. That they don't choose to believe what they do, but are predisposed to be superstitious.

A response to Baldar:

The reason I did that was because he provided no sources and I was just trying to be clear about what I was suggesting instead of posting the whole damn thing which is annoying and bothersome. Furthermore I did acknowledge that I cut parts out. I was just trying to point out that unless you provide specific sources it was an argument from ignorance.

Except that you know quite well that there are sources that have been provided numerous times in the past.  It is equally bothersome to have to repeat information simply to avoid red herring arguments from the critic who is quite aware of the evidence.

The reality is that early scripture manuscripts (100-200 AD) are supported by a degree of contemporaneous historical writing that validate the writer and authenticates it.  Meanwhile critics have no evidence to support their view so they rely on form critical analysis.  they comb through the writing to tease out anything that might support their prejudice.  Such things as variations in writing style or changes in emphasis from one letter to the next.  Then they proclaim victory when their conclusions match the presuppositions driving them. 

What contemporaneous writings?

I didn't know how I would announce this, but noted Biblical Scholar and Christian Bart Erhman has become an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

This guy has one of the most impressive resume's for Biblical scholarship I've seen.


Now I see why Xians are so opposed to scholarship. This guy went as deep as anyone into real Xianity and came out an agnostic.

BTW, its because of typical atheist reasons: problem of evil, etc.

He also points out that the best eyewitness that Jesus existed was Paul. Paul met Jesus' brother... or so he says.
That's it. That's all the contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence.

Ehrman is coming out with a book on the problem of Evil and the Bible early next year.  I am sure RF and Co. are already gearing up for the personal attacks and apologetics.

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-Answer-Important-Question-Why/dp/0061173975/ref=sr_1_12/103-7440983-8763054?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193845959&sr=1-12

Its funny, the poor atheists simply have to tie their wagon to agnostics.  They can't stand alone.  So someone is an agnostic, ie they don't know if God exists or not.  Fine, so they have an open mind.  It beats the somewhat closed minded bigots who dare not question their own faith based claim.  Some atheists though, do question whether their belief systems.  They aren't ignorant fanatics.  Others atheists however feel they cannot justify their own beliefs unless they attack someone elses.

Some sort of inadequacy issue I assume.

Everyone is agnostic (Don't know if a god or gods exist).  The fact that a prominent Theist is no longer a Theist is of more than passing interest for people who follow this topic.  I'm sorry this simple fact puts your panties in a twist.

Sigh, no its about belief systems and commitent.

Agnostics are unwilling to commit to a particular belief system, they are not sure and therefore are waiting for further evidence to believe or not.

Atheists have a faith system, but their faith is that god does not exist and they make such claims, even when they are both illogical and bigoted (most atheists aren't bigoted, but it seems we get the vast share of those that are on this website).

Theists believe there is a god or gods, and have committed to such a belief.

Leave it to barney to confuse everything.

Yes, one has a God belief, one lacks it. We all don't know.




edit: btw, I notice that you accept that one of the Premiere Biblical Scholars of our time has 'converted' to agnosticism. I applaud you on observing fact.  A rare treat for us "Baldar Watchers". ;)

Those who claim personal revelation say they have been convinced and do know.  You cannot claim that nobody knows.  You can only speak for yourself.

And yet they can't offer anything that would resemble the most liberal notion of evidence.

i know people BELIEVE things. Some people believe they are Napoleon or Cleopatra incarnate.  People believe all sorts of things.

It's not "knowing", in any sense of the word that is knowable.

If you accept that it is, Andrea Yates, a Suicide bomber or hindu mystic is telling the truth, too.

Generally they offer the evidence of a changed life.  Your prejudice rejects such evidence out of hand.


Yes but absent perception can "know" anything?  Can you distinguish the difference between something I know but cannot demonstrate and something I believe but cannot demonstrate? 


Do you claim that you can tell what someone else knows?


While we cannot always tell what somebody "knows"  we can often discern truth since truth is external and universal.  Andrea claims God told her to kill her children but that is inconsistent with Biblical doctrine.  So if God did tell her to kill her children, it was not the Bible God. Likewise the God of Abraham would not command an Islamist to bomb Jews or anyone else.  barney, I don't understand your difficulty.

I don't reject that Andrea Yates' life had changed... quite dramatically. As did Moses' when he ordered the killing of helpless women and children.

No. Not if you can't make clear to me the difference. 

No. They must demostrate that it is 1)Knowable 2)Authentic 3) Verifiable  (btw, I thought we agreed that a person would be known by their works.  What difference does it make if Hitler believed Jews to be the salt of the Earth and wonderful folk?)

Especially if they are going to kill my child in front of me.

Would you ask for anything different? I dare say you do - or do you accept that Andrea Yates or the 9-11 maniacs were telling the truth.... or don't you distinguish?

  the god of Abraham commanded the killing of women and children. No, not with bombs, they didn't have them then.  He commanded it in a much more brutal manner - by sword and by tearing the temple down above their heads.

I'm sure if your child was in the building you would simply pass it off as God's Will and move on.

Such Faith you have!

 ::)

I think Reasoned Faiths "faith" pales in comparison to barney's.  Barney can't explain his beliefs, he is constantly corrected about is own beliefs.  He makes huge logic errors, and yet, he believes fervently in his cause.  Now THAT is faith, or fanaticism.   ::)

At least Reasoned Faith makes a huge effort to understand the issues round his faith and his mortal paradigm.  It reflects a certain respect he has for his own beliefs.  Too bad barney fears to do the same.