Author Topic: Moral laws of the Bible  (Read 12037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #261 on: May 03, 2012, 08:12:51 AM »
Jane-

I think that Alzael (and others) are asking if you can identify any historical records or artifacts from the lifetime of Jesus.  Are there tax documents?  Records of his execution?  The Romans, as I understand it, were pretty good record keepers. 
They were. Unfortunately a great deal of it has not survived. It is believed that Tacitus, by virtue of his position, would have had access to such records. One of my favorite fantasies is that Herod's archives will turn up in a cave somewhere. 2nd best would be the discovery of all the missing works of Tacitus. We have very little of it. In fact, we have lost something like 90% of the written record of the ancient world.

Quote
As I stated earlier, I was raised to believe that a historical Jesus existed.  I know that there is mounting evidence suggesting that he didn't.  I have not studied the evidence enough to have developed a personal opinion.
That was the popular opinion in the 19th century. It is out of fashion now. There really are very few trained historians (or New Testament scholars) who hold that view. But hope springs eternal in the breasts of atheists. They are such an optimistic bunch!

Quote
You are clearly a scholar who has a strong personal opinion on this topic, so I'm assuming you have studied the evidence.  As a scholar, can you present evidence that supports the conclusions you have reached?
It seems to me you are asking for a bullet list of the sort: 1. Letter to Mary from Jesus. 2. Drawing of Jesus by local artist. 3. Tomb inscribed with the names of Mary and Joseph. etc. Such a thing is not possible. Not for Jesus and not for 99% of the ancient world. No, the work of historical scholarship is a painstaking one of reconstruction from whatever sources are available. Depending on what a given individual is trying to do, there are standards of procedure. So, for example, if one is trying to date a document, one might look at the vocabulary to see if one can find examples of words that we know did not come into the language until, say, 150 B.C. If one wants to discover the provenance of a document, one might analyze the material on which it is written. Or the chemical composition of the ink. If it is derived from a plant that is found only in, say, northeastern Turkey, then that is a pretty big clue as to the physical origin of the document. Because new evidence does turn up, historical research is always subject to revision in the light of more and better evidence.

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #262 on: May 03, 2012, 08:23:46 AM »
By the way, does your logic apply to the Qur'an?

Plain Jane, this is one of the main reasons that the Bible cannot be included as proof. Otherwise you'd have to accept the Qur'an as proof that Allah is the one true god and same thing for every other "Holy Book."

For every verse in the bible you can pull to prove Jesus, a Muslim can pull a verse to prove Mohammed what Allah's (the one true god) final prophet. So after the Bible and Qur'an cancel each other out, what do you have to convince a Muslim or a Muslim to convince you? I'll tell you one thing, we Know Mohammed existed... we just don't believe in him being a Prophet without proof.
I am afraid this is fundamentally mistaken. Someone has already pointed out that Mohammed's "revelations" were private. Who can verify that or argue with it?  By contrast, Christ's ministry was carried out in public for 3 years. The earliest of Paul's letters can be reliably dated to 51 or 52 A.D.-- within the life time of a great many eye-witnesses. Not only that but it contains an early creed that can be dated to within 5-8 years of Christ's resurrection-- so, there were plenty of people who could rebut Paul and the other apostles, if so inclined. Indeed, Paul alludes to 500 living eyewitnesses known to the congregation he is addressing. He invites them to talk to any of these witnesses, if they have doubts about what Paul is telling them.

These are pretty significant differences with the Koran, I believe.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10530
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #263 on: May 03, 2012, 08:28:00 AM »
Zeus's revelations were public. So were Odin's, Shiva and Buddha.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #264 on: May 03, 2012, 08:43:34 AM »
Yeah, but Islam is not Christianity. Therefore different rules apply.

Someone who just came across Islam and Christianity wouldn't care either way. Neither would make any sense whether it was "private" or "public" revelation. I bet you, that it wouldn't even factor into thier decision, since they cancel each other out while comparing religions.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11980
  • Darwins +614/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #265 on: May 03, 2012, 08:49:01 AM »
I am not going to indulge you any further in this nonsense beyond this message. Let me say this plainly. Anyone who claims that the documents of the New Testament are not primary historical source material does not have even the slightest clue what history is and how it is done. Therefore, discussing this subject with such a person would be as rewarding as trying to teach algebra to a two year old. One can try but it will not be pleasant and ther will be no reward for doing so.

I don't think that's very nice, Jane.  I'm a mechanical engineer, so I don't have a whole lot of idea how history is done.  But I'm also not an idiot.  I think discussing history with me would be a lot easier than, say, trying to correct jakec47's  misconceptions about evolution.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #266 on: May 03, 2012, 08:52:06 AM »


I am afraid this is fundamentally mistaken. Someone has already pointed out that Mohammed's "revelations" were private. Who can verify that or argue with it?  By contrast, Christ's ministry was carried out in public for 3 years. The earliest of Paul's letters can be reliably dated to 51 or 52 A.D.-- within the life time of a great many eye-witnesses. Not only that but it contains an early creed that can be dated to within 5-8 years of Christ's resurrection-- so, there were plenty of people who could rebut Paul and the other apostles, if so inclined. Indeed, Paul alludes to 500 living eyewitnesses known to the congregation he is addressing. He invites them to talk to any of these witnesses, if they have doubts about what Paul is telling them.

These are pretty significant differences with the Koran, I believe.

Muslims would argue that since the Prophet Mohammad was "unlettered" or had minimal literacy skills, and no religious training, it would be impossible for him to have authored such a complex and poetic document, with so many references to content included in the previous scriptures, which he had never read.  How did he know so much about Noah, or Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus for that matter, if he had never read the scriptures? 

And the Qur'an is a really beautiful document, from a poetic perspective.  Have you ever heard it read in Arabic?  It is mesmerizing.  Not, of course, once it is translated. 

Muslims cite their miracles.  Christians cite their miracles.  All monotheists cite the Jewish miracles. 

But tell me more about Paul's letter and this creed.  There may be others here familiar with these documents, but I am not.

Thanks!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11980
  • Darwins +614/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #267 on: May 03, 2012, 08:53:44 AM »
...Paul never met Jesus except by channeling so he is a primary source only on the things he says he did.

None of that is particularly a problem. We do not much care who the actual authors were.

Oh, shit.  Jane, I can hardly believe what I'm reading.  Do you have an evil twin who has access to your wwgha account?  I hope so.  Otherwise I have a difficult time reconciling this^ reply with this one:

Quote
Does it matter if Socrates or Plato actually existed?  That is, if they didn't exist, that that affect what they said?  Is the same true of jesus H?


Yes it matters! Our understanding of the ancient world depends on being able to reconstruct with some accuracy what happened at various points in history. Much of what we know about ancient Greece is preserved in a relatively small number of manuscripts. The lives of both Socrates and Plato were enmeshed in the political events of their times. If they didn't exist, our sources of knowledge about those events is diminished.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #268 on: May 03, 2012, 08:54:37 AM »
None of that is particularly a problem. We do not much care who the actual authors were. Those Gospels were written in the Apostles' communities and were accepted into the Bible because they met all the criteria for inclusion (had been read in the congregations, were known to be associated with an apostle, taught true doctrine, were popular and there may be one more that I am forgetting). Acceptance into the canon depended on meeting all the criteria. Thus the Didache, which was wildly popular and taught true doctrine was rejected for inclusion because it was not associated with an apostle. Luke is a bit of a mixed bag and he is a primary source for the birth of the Church since he is the author of Acts.
That is actually not true.

You can't say on one hand that you do not care who the author was and on the other hand insist adamantly that the gospels are primary sources.

Besides the authorship of the gospels is unknown. To say that they have been written in the apostles' communities is nothing more than making stuff up. More to the point, there is actually textual evidence that the gospels have been written / compiled by people that have not been familiar with the region and Jewish religion and culture, thus ruling out the possibility of the gospels having been written by supposed members of the apostles' communities.

Quote
All in all, upon closer inspection there is not much left that would lend credibility to the gospels or any other book of the NT as evidence for a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible.

This is simply untrue. Again, the historicity of the man Jesus is not in doubt. Whether or not you believe that he is God depends either on faith, or, on weighing the historical claims and deciding whether or not they are strong enough to support belief. Most likely, some mixture of both.
I will have to disagree on this.

Again, as I have said before, there is no historical evidence for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible. No one will disagree on the possibility of the existence of an actual person being the basis for the Christian myth. At the time the story happened, the region was teeming with wandering itinerant rabbis, so it's not too far fetched to assume one or more inspired the biblical Jesus myth.
But a historical Jesus as described in the bible is pretty much nonsense. There simply is no historical evidence for the biblical Jesus.

That being said, you actually ignored the point of my post. It was (and still seems to be) your claim that the four gospels are primary historical sources. It has been shown that this is not the case.
The gospels have neither been written by contemporaries nor have they actually existed in their known form prior to the end of the second century.

As such the conclusion that you quoted still stands: This does not lend credibility to the gospels as evidence for a historicaldivine Jesus as described in the bible.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #269 on: May 03, 2012, 08:56:05 AM »


Interesting way of admitting defeat to Lucifer, Jane. Don't worry; you'll get some easy questions some day.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #270 on: May 03, 2012, 10:16:42 AM »
Jane-

I think that Alzael (and others) are asking if you can identify any historical records or artifacts from the lifetime of Jesus.  Are there tax documents?  Records of his execution?  The Romans, as I understand it, were pretty good record keepers. 

 They were. Unfortunately a great deal of it has not survived. It is believed that Tacitus, by virtue of his position, would have had access to such records. One of my favorite fantasies is that Herod's archives will turn up in a cave somewhere. 2nd best would be the discovery of all the missing works of Tacitus. We have very little of it. In fact, we have lost something like 90% of the written record of the ancient world.


Jane your too lenient and do not fantasize big enough.

What you really want to see is the works of jesus to show up.

That's right. Thought provoking isn't it ?

However there is no trace of such a thing, and so it begs the question as to why the Master of the Universe--the kings of kings--the word himself and the founder of a new and exciting religion--the creator of all that is: failed to write one single word about his life on this planet..failed to write down one single instruction for practicing the new religion he had formed...not one single document that would verify his existence, his ministry, and his religion.

No, not one word, but instaed leaves that job to the inept and quick tempered Peter and his bumblings, or the likes of a misogynistic Paul. He leaves the most important message ever created, in the hands of the imperfect mess that he created called humanity and to the unreliable and often times spurious methods of hearsay and gossip. Would a perfect god/man with great enthusiasm for his message, allow such treatment of this prized revelation by leaving its spread without his personal written mark and to hearsay ?
No I say not !

Is this truly a mistake that a perfect god in the flesh would make ?  On the other hand, perhaps, and is it possible that, such a god/king is illiterate and simply cannot write his message down ? No. It's inconceivable and given the description of him being able to teach the rabbi's in the temple at twelve years of age concerning the law. An illiterate is unable to do such a thing and therefore would know how to read and write and communicate thoroughly with pen his clear message to the masses.

Jane, clear facts are being pointed out to you in this thread. Mine is simply another that compels us to continue to treat the divine jesus story as a legend--a story that has been built in the centuries that followed the man jesus and used purposely to enhance the authority of religious leaders over the masses, and the pockets of the charlatans.

Cheers 
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 10:18:32 AM by gonegolfing »
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #271 on: May 03, 2012, 10:18:23 AM »
EDIT to correct my screwed up quoting.
I'm guessing all my points have been covered already but I do like ot make a personal response to such theists as Jane.

I am a teensy bit skeptical after having read a number of your posts which don't suggest any great familiarity with the Bible or the scholarship. Perhaps, you might have read a popular book along the way. The work of scholarship is carried out in stupefyingly dull (sometimes) journal articles and a lot of it is in German and other languages that you would have to be able to read, since articles are rarely translated. Still, there are serious books out there and it is certainly possible that you have read one or two. Care to name them?
I love this. You want to claim that since I don’t agree with your nonsense, I don’t know the bible.  Hilarious because that’s all of the “reason” you have, Jane.  Jane, I was a Christian so I know all of the dodges that Christians use.  I’ve read the bible completely once as a believer and once as note, along with probably having read it a couple more times piecemeal.  I do love how you try so desperately to lie about other people, Jane.  Hmmm, isn’t that called false witnessing?  I do love how you’ve decided on your own that any real scholarship is “mostly in German” (hint, there are things called “translations” of articles since your claim that your articles are “rarely translated isn’t true and I see as a transparent attempt to make sure no one looks for them) and I can just see you already trying to claim that any book that you don’t agree with isn’t “really” serious and only simply “popular”.  It’s a classic tactic and such a pathetically transparent one. 

Do you read German? Can you tell me what Sitz im Leben means without looking?  And it’s between you and your god on that little chance to lie.  What ones have you read of these ever so “dull” books?  I’ve read Schweitzer, Spinoza (the RCC has him on their banned books list, funny that), William Albright, etc.   
Quote
How interesting. What have you read? How do you evaluate the evidence proposed? Do you have a background in Near Eastern history? Semitic languages and cultures? Ancient literature? Old Testament studies?
I love this, hilarious.  And I’m sure you do, don’t you Jane? &)  You have all of these backgrounds since you are sure that they are needed for knowing all about your religion?  Or are you lying Jane, as so many other Christians have?  Let’s see. I have a degree in geology, and a very good background in biology (I started my college in that before changing majors).  So I know how to investigate and review evidence aka the scientific method that hypocrites like you hate unless it creates things that make your life easier.  I have a minor in Library Science so I know how to research very very well. I love learning so I know a lot about a lot of subjects.  I am well-versed in archaeology, psychology, and literature, including how various literary techniques are used.  I know a lot about other religions, and known that yours is nothing special or unique.  I am not an expert in ANE languages but I have no reason not to trust those who are and who support their conclusions with evidence. 
Quote
I have no interest in worshipping a "possible itinerant rabbi" of any period. I worship God-- and that means Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Ah, so you don’t worship the “historical” Jesus at all since there is no evidence of this historical Jesus to be any “father son and holy spirit”.  So much for your attempting to claim that the historical jesus has any validity toward supporting your claims. 
Quote
Where the historicity of the NT is concerned, the consensus is quite overwhelming. That does not mean uniform agreement on all the details.
No, the consensus is not overwhelming.  If you think so, again, evidence please.  And it’s always fun to see a Christian make the claim that the consensus is overwhelming but immediately make excuses about why it’s not.  It’s rather like the part in “The Life of Brian” where the People’s Front of Judea are asked “What have the Romans done for us?” which leads to 10 minutes of listing just what the Romans have indeed done for them.  Like so many Christians, you just want to willfully ignore the lies and contradictions in your bible so you may cling to the parts you like.
Quote
Could you please remind Ms Velkyn of that? I have but I think it will carry more weight coming from you than me! More seriously, the problem is where to start and stop. And what will you do with the information when you get it? Will you investigate it? Will my effort pay off in any way, shape or form?  How much will be enough?
Jane, you aren’t in the Shelter, so your whining is silly.  I’ve shown you my reasoning and evidence that your claims are nonsense.  I do love to see *yet again* the usual attempts by a Christian to claim that atheists aren’t “really” interested in evidence.  Since I am, Jane, your words are again lies.

You again repeat the baseless claim that the bible is a “primary historical” source.  Sorry, but a lie doesn’t magically become true with repetition, Jane.  You keep repeating that historians find them accurate.  That’s not true.  The bible has mentions of real places and people.  That’s it. None of the essential events claimed in the bible can be shown to be real at all.  Not your “creation”, the noah flood, the supposed destruction to the point it will *never* be found again of Tyre, the exodus, the various wars, the supposedly fantastic palaces of Solomon or David, no magical nativity, no cruxifiction, and no magical return of JC anytime that makes sense.  If you want to claim that the mere mentiosn of a few historical places and people make a true story, then the myths of the Greeks and Romans are true, the claims of Islam are true, any modern thriller on the bookshelves is true; all as true as your nonsense.  Are they, Jane?  Are you willing to accept that?   

as for monks being preservers, that’s only by luck.  They were using old books as palimpsest for idiotic prayer books.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 11:54:51 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #272 on: May 03, 2012, 10:23:31 AM »
velkyn Please read again.  Revelation 12: "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."  The only similarities with this and the beast of Rev 13 is the seven heads.  The beast itself here is described as a dragon.  The beast in Rev is not described as a dragon but has many more similarities with the beasts in Daniel. 

In addition "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" -- Rev 13:4.  Clearly the dragon and the beast are not the same.
Unfortuantely other theists disagree with you, Jst.  Now, we can solve this problem by having you and them compete just like God has doen before, with altars that are to be set on fire to the god that actually exists.  Are you up for that? 
Quote
I always tell my children that it takes two to argue.  So no I do not hold myself guiltless.  My claim of something being removed was in reference to a thread I started in the shelter I started that broke the 500 word rule.  I said it will likely be deleted or moved.  It was moved.
In this case it take one to lie and another to refute that lie and laugh at the liar for his excuses. 

Quote
Plain Jane

Quote
I am a teensy bit skeptical after having read a number of your posts which don't suggest any great familiarity with the Bible or the scholarship.

I agree.  This seems to be the case with some but not all.
That's a riot.  A wannabee JW and a Catholic deciding that no one but them knows the bible correctly, and both of them hating each other because they think each other knows it incorrectly.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #273 on: May 03, 2012, 11:28:21 AM »
...Paul never met Jesus except by channeling so he is a primary source only on the things he says he did.

None of that is particularly a problem. We do not much care who the actual authors were.

Oh, shit.  Jane, I can hardly believe what I'm reading.  Do you have an evil twin who has access to your wwgha account?  I hope so.  Otherwise I have a difficult time reconciling this^ reply with this one:
Quote
Does it matter if Socrates or Plato actually existed?  That is, if they didn't exist, that that affect what they said?  Is the same true of jesus H?


Yes it matters! Our understanding of the ancient world depends on being able to reconstruct with some accuracy what happened at various points in history. Much of what we know about ancient Greece is preserved in a relatively small number of manuscripts. The lives of both Socrates and Plato were enmeshed in the political events of their times. If they didn't exist, our sources of knowledge about those events is diminished.


;D Not quite the same thing, though I understand why you might think so. We have known for a very long time that the Gospels arose within communities of believers around the apostles. Just from the opening of Luke's Gospel we know that there were already a great many written and oral sources circulating that he reviewed, in order to write his Gospel.  It is a fascinating subject but very complex. It may be enough to say that the 4 we have met the criteria for inclusion in the canon of scripture.

You can't say on one hand that you do not care who the author was and on the other hand insist adamantly that the gospels are primary sources.

Err, yes, I can. We don't know the authorship of many documents that historians still rely on.

Quote
Besides the authorship of the gospels is unknown. To say that they have been written in the apostles' communities is nothing more than making stuff up. More to the point, there is actually textual evidence that the gospels have been written / compiled by people that have not been familiar with the region and Jewish religion and culture, thus ruling out the possibility of the gospels having been written by supposed members of the apostles' communities.
To be perfectly blunt, this is atheist woo. I am familiar with such claims. They are outside the mainstream and poorly supported by actual evidence.

What you really want to see is the works of jesus to show up.

That's right. Thought provoking isn't it ?

Actually, no. Jesus was not a scribe. He could read. He may not have known how to write. In any case absolutely nothing we know about his life suggests that he had the leisure to devote to such an occupation, nor is there any reason to believe that he would have wanted to waste his time that way. He had a mission to accomplish.

Quote
No, not one word, but instaed leaves that job to the inept and quick tempered Peter and his bumblings, or the likes of a misogynistic Paul. He leaves the most important message ever created, in the hands of the imperfect mess that he created called humanity ...
YES! Weirdly, you have actually got it. God works through man, thus affording him unimaginable dignity. If God could take a jerk like Peter, who betrayed him when it mattered most, and make him the head of his church and a saint, what can he do with you, if you let him?

Quote
Jane, clear facts are being pointed out to you in this thread. Mine is simply another that compels us to continue to treat the divine jesus story as a legend--a story that has been built in the centuries that followed the man jesus and used purposely to enhance the authority of religious leaders over the masses, and the pockets of the charlatans.
  ;D ;D ;D No, no clear facts have been pointed out here except by me to you all. It is time for you all to understand that you have depended on what other atheists have told you. It might be time to do some real research for yourselves instead of depending on aggressive Internet atheists who are, for the most part, ignorant as dirt.

I'm guessing all my points have been covered already but I do like ot make a personal response to such theists as Jane.
Ah, another verbose, confused message. The one thing you haven't done, my dear, is answer my questions.  Schweitzer and Spinoza, are completely useless for the purpose. I asked what scholarly lit you had read. I have the greatest admiration for Schweitzer but he, like William Albright, is almost completely out of date. Scholarship has progressed enormously since their time.

Quote
Do you read German?
I read it write it, speak it and have taught it at the university level. I have an advanced degree in it and studied in Germany for two years.

Quote
Can you tell me what Sitz im Leben means without looking?

Yes. Can you tell me what blöde Kuh means without looking it up?

Quote
You again repeat the baseless claim that the bible is a “primary historical” source.
No, I have said that the 26 books of the NT are (leaving out Revelation). That is the consensus of the academic world and that trumps a bad tempered Internet atheist every day of the week. (I can just visualize the veins in your temples bulging. Unclench your teeth, Vel. Those headaches of yours will go away. I promise.)

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #274 on: May 03, 2012, 11:30:21 AM »

I think that Alzael (and others) are asking if you can identify any historical records or artifacts from the lifetime of Jesus.  Are there tax documents?  Records of his execution?  The Romans, as I understand it, were pretty good record keepers. 
They were. Unfortunately a great deal of it has not survived. It is believed that Tacitus, by virtue of his position, would have had access to such records. One of my favorite fantasies is that Herod's archives will turn up in a cave somewhere. 2nd best would be the discovery of all the missing works of Tacitus. We have very little of it. In fact, we have lost something like 90% of the written record of the ancient world.
[/quote]

But you claimed that there was lots of historical evidence. We know Tacitus is a forgery added in later. So where is the rest of your evidence?

I gave you a 2 to 1 advantage. Why do you hide from your own claim?

1. Letter to Mary from Jesus.

What letter would that be? There is record of a letter from Ignatius that is supposedly addressed to Mary, perhaps you are confusing the two. Or can you point to a letter between Mary and Jesus actually existing?

2. Drawing of Jesus by local artist.

Again, where? Done when?

3. Tomb inscribed with the names of Mary and Joseph. etc.

If you're reffering to the Talpiots tomb then most archeologist and scholars disagree with that.

So I'm still waiting for your side of the evidence debate. You should be able to do and know better than this. Unless you're entirely lying about your qualifications. Which certainly seems to be the case here.

I am not going to indulge you any further in this nonsense beyond this message. Let me say this plainly. Anyone who claims that the documents of the New Testament are not primary historical source material does not have even the slightest clue what history is and how it is done. Therefore, discussing this subject with such a person would be as rewarding as trying to teach algebra to a two year old. One can try but it will not be pleasant and ther will be no reward for doing so.

These are not the words of anyone with real scholarly training. These are the words of a mindless self-important fanatic who cares more about her own petty ego and beliefs than any true scholarship. If you actually do have real training as a scholar you're a shame to your teachers.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 11:36:16 AM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #275 on: May 03, 2012, 11:36:23 AM »
Please read the original message again and see if you can find where you went off the rails.

On second thought, I will help you out.

Jane-

I think that Alzael (and others) are asking if you can identify any historical records or artifacts from the lifetime of Jesus.  Are there tax documents?  Records of his execution? ... 
Quote from: Jane
It seems to me you are asking for a bullet list of the sort: 1. Letter to Mary from Jesus. 2. Drawing of Jesus by local artist. 3. Tomb inscribed with the names of Mary and Joseph. etc. Such a thing is not possible. Not for Jesus and not for 99% of the ancient world. No, the work of historical scholarship is a painstaking one of reconstruction from whatever sources are available. Depending on what a given individual is trying to do, there are standards of procedure. So, for example, if one is trying to date a document, one might look at the vocabulary to see if one can find examples of words that we know did not come into the language until, say, 150 B.C. If one wants to discover the provenance of a document, one might analyze the material on which it is written. Or the chemical composition of the ink. If it is derived from a plant that is found only in, say, northeastern Turkey, then that is a pretty big clue as to the physical origin of the document. Because new evidence does turn up, historical research is always subject to revision in the light of more and better evidence.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 11:40:01 AM by Plain Jane »

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #276 on: May 03, 2012, 11:55:44 AM »
Please read the original message again and see if you can find where you went off the rails.

On second thought, I will help you out.

Jane-

I think that Alzael (and others) are asking if you can identify any historical records or artifacts from the lifetime of Jesus.  Are there tax documents?  Records of his execution? ... 
Quote from: Jane
It seems to me you are asking for a bullet list of the sort: 1. Letter to Mary from Jesus. 2. Drawing of Jesus by local artist. 3. Tomb inscribed with the names of Mary and Joseph. etc. Such a thing is not possible. Not for Jesus and not for 99% of the ancient world. No, the work of historical scholarship is a painstaking one of reconstruction from whatever sources are available. Depending on what a given individual is trying to do, there are standards of procedure. So, for example, if one is trying to date a document, one might look at the vocabulary to see if one can find examples of words that we know did not come into the language until, say, 150 B.C. If one wants to discover the provenance of a document, one might analyze the material on which it is written. Or the chemical composition of the ink. If it is derived from a plant that is found only in, say, northeastern Turkey, then that is a pretty big clue as to the physical origin of the document. Because new evidence does turn up, historical research is always subject to revision in the light of more and better evidence.

And it seems to me that you're just using this as a pathetic and cowardly excuse to refrain from supporting anything that you say. Which, might I remind you is against the forum rules. The rules that you agreed to when you signed up.

The hardships of scholarship is not an excuse to not provide evidence to support yourself. I certainly managed to do it before. Everyone else here manages to do it. Are you truly so inferior to all of us? Such a pity.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #277 on: May 03, 2012, 12:06:07 PM »
Ah, another verbose, confused message. The one thing you haven't done, my dear, is answer my questions.  Schweitzer and Spinoza, are completely useless for the purpose. I asked what scholarly lit you had read. I have the greatest admiration for Schweitzer but he, like William Albright, is almost completely out of date. Scholarship has progressed enormously since their time.
Why yes it has, Jane and I love how you disregard those who are superseded? Becoming an atheist are you with such demands?  Now that we’ve established that you were lying when asking for what scholars I have read, and were only looking for ones you approved of, who are those scholars?  I’m sorry my posts are too “verbose” for you.  Pity. 
Quote
I read it write it, speak it and have taught it at the university level. I have an advanced degree in it and studied in Germany for two years.
  And love to see that you didn’t tell me what the german phrase I asked meant.  Surely an oversight &)  Aw, and such a lovely insult you’ve tried to make. Poor thing, having to resort to calling me a stupid cow.  What a good Christian!  You see, Jane, I have a lot of German ancestry and I’ve had relatives who’ve served in Germany and wouldn’t you know that they always picked up the nastier words.  Glad to know that all of your education led you to this.  Now about the expertise in the ANE?  Ancient literature? Old Testament studies? Do you have that?  You must since you claim that one must have it to understand your nonsense. 
Quote
No, I have said that the 26 books of the NT are (leaving out Revelation). That is the consensus of the academic world and that trumps a bad tempered Internet atheist every day of the week. (I can just visualize the veins in your temples bulging. Unclench your teeth, Vel. Those headaches of yours will go away. I promise.)
  Then you are still wrong, Jane. But plese do keep lying.  I like ot see Christians do that. No, Jane, the consensus of the academic world is not that the NT or the OT are “primary historical source material “ as you have claimed.  You have provided no evidence of this and we have provide evidence that shows you are wrong.  You see, that’s what really trumps a Christian who can’t support her claims.  and alas for you, Jane, your little fantasies are wrong.  I’m laughing at you :)  No anger or bulging veins, you are just too funny and inept for anyone to be angry at you.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 12:07:56 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #278 on: May 03, 2012, 12:11:36 PM »
^^^^ It's funny isn't. She can certainly insult people well-enough. But for all of the education that she claims to have she seems to have a great deal of trouble showing it even the slightest detail. She does however show a great knowledge of gutter speech. So I guess there's at least one area she's clearly shown herself to be an expert in.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11980
  • Darwins +614/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #279 on: May 03, 2012, 12:31:04 PM »
;D Not quite the same thing, though I understand why you might think so. We have known for a very long time that the Gospels arose within communities of believers around the apostles. Just from the opening of Luke's Gospel we know that there were already a great many written and oral sources circulating that he reviewed, in order to write his Gospel.  It is a fascinating subject but very complex. It may be enough to say that the 4 we have met the criteria for inclusion in the canon of scripture.

Wait a sec.  I thought you and I were talking about historicity, not canon.  I know you have a lot of conversations going on, and maybe I crossed them up since the quote about not caring who wrote the gospels was a post to someone else.   

But shouldn't the same point you raised about Socrates apply doubly to the gospels?  If they were written by some guy (who may not have even been a jew!) and not Matt or whomever, then that changes everything, doesn't it?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #280 on: May 03, 2012, 01:55:59 PM »
A little evidence to support Jane:

"Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,[4] many scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence.[5] Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10530
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #281 on: May 03, 2012, 02:01:35 PM »
So you agree that the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist? Good.
Note that the Jesus of the Bible did supernatural things. What you presented as evidence says otherwise.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #282 on: May 03, 2012, 02:03:52 PM »
;D Not quite the same thing, though I understand why you might think so. We have known for a very long time that the Gospels arose within communities of believers around the apostles. Just from the opening of Luke's Gospel we know that there were already a great many written and oral sources circulating that he reviewed, in order to write his Gospel.  It is a fascinating subject but very complex. It may be enough to say that the 4 we have met the criteria for inclusion in the canon of scripture.

Wait a sec.  I thought you and I were talking about historicity, not canon.  I know you have a lot of conversations going on, and maybe I crossed them up since the quote about not caring who wrote the gospels was a post to someone else. 


Actually, there aren't a lot of conversations going on. There is a lot of gang banging going on so that I have to pick and choose what I will respond to from an amazing amount of dreck. This is starting to bore me.

My main goal is to respond to sane people who are able to listen and ask good questions about what I write. If they are hard questions, so much the better. You fit that bill admirably.

Quote
But shouldn't the same point you raised about Socrates apply doubly to the gospels?  If they were written by some guy (who may not have even been a jew!) and not Matt or whomever, then that changes everything, doesn't it?
No, it really doesn't. No matter who wrote the Gospels, they are about Jesus and we know rather a lot about their provenance and authorship.  If Plato didn't write the works and letters attributed to him, then they are spurious. The equivalent situation would be if we claimed that the Gospels were written by Jesus-- and then, oops! It could be shown that they aren't.

Now to Velly, who is such a joy to slog through!

...  And love to see that you didn’t tell me what the german phrase I asked meant.  Surely an oversight &)
Silly, girl. Strive to write carefully. You asked me if I could translate it without looking it up. I answered you honestly. What is particular preposterous about your "challenge" is that one does not need to have ever studied a word of German to do so, if one is familiar with the literature of sociology or  biblical studies. You might just as well ask if I know what c'est la vie means.
Quote
Poor thing, having to resort to calling me a stupid cow.

Uh, actually I didn't. I asked you to translate a phrase designed to see if you knew any German that is not widely familiar and is, indeed, somewhat slangy. On the other hand, if the shoe fits... müh!   

Quote
.... No, Jane, the consensus of the academic world is not that the NT or the OT are “primary historical source material “ as you have claimed.

Yes, Vel. That is the consensus of the academic world. But I have only made the claim for the New Testament. You really need to read more carefully.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 02:06:34 PM by Plain Jane »

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #283 on: May 03, 2012, 02:09:58 PM »

Uh, actually I didn't. I asked you to translate a phrase designed to see if you knew any German that is not widely familiar and is, indeed, somewhat slangy. On the other hand, if the shoe fits... müh!   

So you did, in fact call her a stupid cow. Just as you are now. That's why you chose that particular phrase, isn't it?

I see yet another set of excuses for why you can't actually produce anything intelligent as an argument. You're a very sad excuse for a theist.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #284 on: May 03, 2012, 02:11:03 PM »
Quote
But shouldn't the same point you raised about Socrates apply doubly to the gospels?  If they were written by some guy (who may not have even been a jew!) and not Matt or whomever, then that changes everything, doesn't it?
No, it really doesn't. No matter who wrote the Gospels, they are about Jesus and we know rather a lot about their provenance and authorship.  If Plato didn't write the works and letters attributed to him, then they are spurious. The equivalent situation would be if we claimed that the Gospels were written by Jesus-- and then, oops! It could be shown that they aren't.
.
Careful about the authorship and provenance of the gospels...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin_of_the_canonical_gospels
If you study the writings of the gospels enough, you will find that the first account of 'Jesus' starts with one gospel, written particularly for one audience.  That same group was the group that was spreading the word of Jesus through 'Psalms'... Although all of it survived somehow (or most), it is effectively no different than the authorship and provenance of the Dead Sea Scrolls..
Point being, if you know what you were talking about, you would realize that your gospels were written by authors trying to spread chritianity to different audiences, at different times.   This completely makes it mostly a made-up story, and you should be able to conclude, simply by studying the gospels and history, that Jesus was in fact, if he even existed in reality, simply a man.  Nothing further...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #285 on: May 03, 2012, 02:26:02 PM »
Careful about the authorship and provenance of the gospels...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin_of_the_canonical_gospels
If you study the writings of the gospels enough, you will find that the first account of 'Jesus' starts with one gospel, written particularly for one audience.  That same group was the group that was spreading the word of Jesus through 'Psalms'... Although all of it survived somehow (or most), it is effectively no different than the authorship and provenance of the Dead Sea Scrolls..
Point being, if you know what you were talking about, you would realize that your gospels were written by authors trying to spread chritianity to different audiences, at different times.   This completely makes it mostly a made-up story, and you should be able to conclude, simply by studying the gospels and history, that Jesus was in fact, if he even existed in reality, simply a man.  Nothing further...
There is actually a germ of truth amongst all this chaff. The Gospels were written in different places by different authors and shaped to bring the message to a specific audience they were targeting. We have known that for the last 2000 years. Why do you think this is news to me or makes the slightest difference?

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #286 on: May 03, 2012, 02:41:47 PM »
You can't say on one hand that you do not care who the author was and on the other hand insist adamantly that the gospels are primary sources.

Err, yes, I can. We don't know the authorship of many documents that historians still rely on.
Jane, as someone who prides herself on her education, knowledge and her ability in doing textual analysis and research I have to wonder how it can be that despite all that, you manage to completely miss the actual point of my posts even though I've repeated it several times for you now.
I very much doubt the level of reading comprehension needed to understand the point of my posts would be too much for an educated person such as you proclaim to be. I dare to say that if this should indeed be the full level of reading comprehension you possess, the quality of your biblical (and scientific) research can not be very high.

Unless of course it's not a matter of reading comprehension here but one of deliberately trying to move the goal posts.


Your original point was that the gospels of the NT are historical primary sources. However it has been shown that this is not the case; the gospels do not fulfill the criteria of being primary sources regarding the existence of a historical Jesus as described in the bible.

As it has been shown, the authors of the gospels are completely unknown. The texts known as the gospels today do not appear in any way before the end of the second century CE. The texts of the gospels are known to be heavily edited and in large parts mere compilations of things written in earlier gospels (later gospels copying from the earlier ones) and lost writings (Q source).

As a reply to that you have previously said it's no issue if the authorship of the gospels is anonymous (which is wrong) and that the gospels had been written by unknown persons out of the apostles' communities (which is not just wrong but completely made up).
And now, after I told you again that an anonymous authorship of texts written 30 to over 100 years after what supposedly happened is incompatible with a classification as a primary source, you come and say that you can still call them primary sources and "We don't know the authorship of many documents that historians still rely on."

It's not a matter whether historians rely on anonymous documents or not. It's a matter whether these would be a primary source or not. Usually not and double no if they have been written a generation or more after the fact.



A diary or a letter by an apostle of Jesus written at the time of their travels would be a primary source.[1]

The story of Jesus and the apostles' travels written by an apostle several years after what happened is a secondary source.[2]

The story of Jesus and the apostles' travels written by someone who got told about it by an apostle after it happened is a secondary source.[3]

A writing of a greek philosopher discussing the story of Jesus and the apostle's travels as it had been recorded by someone who heard about it from one of the apostles is a tertiary source.[4]



Jane, either you don't know what a primary source is or your approach is that the gospels MUST be primary sources no matter what.
 1. An original source of information written / recorded directly at the time / event which is studied, e.g. Albert Einstein's diary and work notes.
 2. Something written or recorded after the fact and reflected upon with hindsight, e.g. Albert Einstein's book "Out of My Later Years"
 3. A citation of primary information that is generalized, commented on, analyzed and / or interpreted, e.g. the biography "Einstein: His Life and Universe" written by Walter Isaacson based on Einstein's personal correspondence
 4. A source that is a collection or distillation of mostly secondary sources, e.g. the Wikipedia entry about Albert Einstein
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PM by Asmoday »
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4375
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #287 on: May 03, 2012, 02:42:29 PM »
Careful about the authorship and provenance of the gospels...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin_of_the_canonical_gospels
If you study the writings of the gospels enough, you will find that the first account of 'Jesus' starts with one gospel, written particularly for one audience.  That same group was the group that was spreading the word of Jesus through 'Psalms'... Although all of it survived somehow (or most), it is effectively no different than the authorship and provenance of the Dead Sea Scrolls..
Point being, if you know what you were talking about, you would realize that your gospels were written by authors trying to spread chritianity to different audiences, at different times.   This completely makes it mostly a made-up story, and you should be able to conclude, simply by studying the gospels and history, that Jesus was in fact, if he even existed in reality, simply a man.  Nothing further...
There is actually a germ of truth amongst all this chaff. The Gospels were written in different places by different authors and shaped to bring the message to a specific audience they were targeting. We have known that for the last 2000 years. Why do you think this is news to me or makes the slightest difference?
So a whole bunch of men who never met or witnessed Jesus while he was alive wrote things about him,having never met or probably talked to each other either.

 They targeted their writing to fleece those who would believe them,,,,what,other than faith leads you to believe it is truth
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #288 on: May 03, 2012, 02:45:32 PM »
Lots of stuff snipped.
You are mostly wrong but I cannot be arsed to go through it all again. I suggest that you look up "primary source" in a good history text book and inform yourself.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Darwins +21/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Moral laws of the Bible
« Reply #289 on: May 03, 2012, 02:52:26 PM »
So you agree that the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist? Good.
Note that the Jesus of the Bible did supernatural things. What you presented as evidence says otherwise.

No, it says it cannot be proved using the same evidence that is used to prove that he did, at least, exist.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10