Moral laws of the Bible

[nogodsforme]

His life is just about the best attested of any figure in the ancient world. the fact that you will simply not accept the documentary evidence that every historian accepts is simply a shame but is completely irrelevant.

Every historian accepts it? Tell us Jane - is every historian a Christian? They must surely be if every historian accepts the historical documentary evidence of Jeebus.

No training in history at all. Pity, that. No, not every historian is a Christian. Not every New Testament scholar is either. What they all have in common is their ability to recognize historical source documents, primary sources, when they see them. They know how to look at them and tease out what is likely to be true and what not. This is why I have to giggle when you people tell me that Jesus is legendary, that Paul never existed, yadda, yadda, yadda. Only a couple of fringe lunatics still try to market those spoiled goods.

(emphasis mine)
We have already been through this: anonymous third person accounts about magical things Jesus supposedly did (sometimes when he was alone) written by people who could not have been witnesses to the events they describe, are NOT primary source documents. They have no supporting cross references from other places. They are stories.

These accounts are like West African griot tales, the story of King Arthur, Disney cartoons, Greek myths or Superman comics, all of which have some truthful elements and useful life lessons to impart. But no competent, educated person would come here and try to argue that such stories are factually true and should be used as the basis for life. Superman can't fly. Spiders can't talk. Athena was not born from Zeus' head. Kings can't pull magic swords out of stones. Mulan did not save China with the assistance of a talking dragon. And Jesus did not turn water into wine or come back from the dead. 

As Seppuku pointed out, scholars can trace many biblical themes (like the angry OT war god who is transformed into the loving NT maternal god, Gilgamesh/Noah's ark and the flood, the specially blessed birth of the hero, the hero dying and being reborn, the dark evil force versus the power of good) back to previous cultures in the ANE, Persia and Mediteranean region. Nothing in the bible is original or new.

If all scholars accepted that Jesus was a real person, a human/deity who was born from a virgin, performed miracles and came back to life after being killed, that the bible was a factual historical document and everything in it was true, there would be no Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists. Or animists. Or atheists.

Because that would mean there was incontrovertible evidence of this religion, and it would be accepted as common knowledge. There would be one religion and pretty much everyone in the world would believe in it, the same way everyone can believe in the existence of the sun. There would be no need for missionaries or forced conversions of people from different cultures.

Unless you are arguing that around 85% of the world--everyone who is not a literal fundamentalist Christian-- is a fringe lunatic. I can't believe I am even arguing about this in 2012CE, on a computer no less.....

[Quesi]

I honestly can't believe that I decided to come take another peek at this thread as it approaches its 500th post, only to find that Jane is still rambling about primary sources and decorating her posts with adorable emoticons. 

If all scholars accepted that Jesus was a real person, a human/deity who was born from a virgin, performed miracles and came back to life after being killed, that the bible was a factual historical document and everything in it was true, there would be no Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists. Or animists. Or atheists.

Is there really anything else to say on this topic? 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

We have already been through this: anonymous third person accounts about magical things Jesus supposedly did (sometimes when he was alone) written by people who could not have been witnesses to the events they describe, are NOT primary source documents. They have no supporting cross references from other places. They are stories.

Yes, they are primary source documents and you can deny it, hold your breath until you turn blue and go out into the backyard and eat worms. It won't make the slightest difference. The scholarly world will continue to engage with those documents as it has for the last 2000 years.

Who said that historians accept the supernatural elements? Who? Do you really not get that the New Testament documents quite thoroughly a particular moment in human history? Do you really not get that it describes the birth of Christianity? Or is Christianity a myth, too?

These accounts are like West African griot tales, the story of King Arthur, Disney cartoons, Greek myths or Superman comics ...

What this tells me is that you have never actually read any real literature. The Gospels are not in the least like any of these.

But no competent, educated person would come here and try to argue that such stories are factually true and should be used as the basis for life.

I don't doubt that most such people are too smart than to come here. Why should they argue with the terminally deaf? But if you think the world is not populated with extremely educated believers in the sciences, humanities and social sciences, that is yet another subject on which you have a great deal to learn.

Nothing in the bible is original or new.

So what? What has that got to do with anything?

(Rest of irrelevant stuff snipped)

[Timtheskeptic]

Ooh, i like that one, can we keep it Mods? Please?

Yes, they are primary source documents and you can deny it, hold your breath until you turn blue and go out into the backyard and eat worms. It won't make the slightest difference. The scholarly world will continue to engage with those documents as it has for the last 2000 years.

The problem is is that these documents have been mistranslated, changed, and even some things were added. If they were to be truly real eyewitnesses, then surely there would be evidence to support the claims. Unfortunately for you, Nogodsforme is right.

What this tells me is that you have never actually read any real literature. The Gospels are not in the least like any of these.

Just because stories like "The Little Mermaid" didn't have gospels, doesn't make the bible any more real or factual. They're still stories because they have been written in interesting ways that couldn't have be true. Like for an example in one of the gospels, Mary and several women saw the tomb opened and left, never speaking to anyone about it. How could the gospel be said if they never told anyone?

I don't doubt that most such people are too smart than to come here. Why should they argue with the terminally deaf? But if you think the world is not populated with extremely educated believers in the sciences, humanities and social sciences, that is yet another subject on which you have a great deal to learn.

Oh Jane, look, i used that on you! Anyway, terminally deaf? I'm not sure if that term is real. Also, believers such as yourself think your religion is true, as did those who were raised to believe in Hindu Gods, Greek Gods, Norse Gods, and more. I don't know if i would call those people smart, but i can say they probably weren't using science or social studies.

So what? What has that got to do with anything?

Everything. If something is pretty much inaccurate, unsupported, and even made up, it's worthless.

[Alzael]

So Jane, have you forgotten about this?

So no evidence at all then. Just assertions and fallacious appeals that what you say is true. Well that's certainly a bold defiance of established trends.

[Seppuku]

Yes, they are primary source documents

For example?

Who said that historians accept the supernatural elements? Who? Do you really not get that the New Testament documents quite thoroughly a particular moment in human history? Do you really not get that it describes the birth of Christianity? Or is Christianity a myth, too?

So is this all that the historians can back up? If that's so, then fine. But we're more interested in the evidence for the supernatural Jesus the Roman Catholic Church talks about and the same Jesus many other sects of Christianity. Hence I asked:

Now, when atheists say (or theists who don't believe in Jesus), "Jesus was/is not real" are they referring to Jesus the son of God mentioned in the bible or a man named Jesus [who was*] around for a while after year 0?

[1]
And said:

I think it doesn't matter whether there was actually a Jesus. I think the important thing is knowing whether the claims about him are true or not. There are many legends out there that could well have been based on real people and some have alternative historical accounts, but it doesn't mean everything said about them was true. Hence I brought up Gilgamesh.

Is it a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that you, as a Catholic, believe in the existence of God and that the supernatural Jesus was real?

If it is a wild stretch of the imagination, then what is it that you do believe? That this part of the bible was fictional? You've made comparisons to fictions more than once and talked about literature, so would you be leaning towards the argument that the bible is mostly ficticious but has parts that describes current events of the time and can be cross referenced, like how much of our fiction today offers commentary of certain things that have happened in the present generation.

Or something else?

1.	*Added because I forgot to add it when editing my post. Now it should be clearer to read.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Open your mind just a little and hear what I say, again. I am not here to defend my beliefs nor to persuade you that they are true. I am here to correct your egregious misstatements of fact and your near total ignorance of history and literature. You really should be thanking me. How many others would bother? Take a wild guess. How much longer will I bother? You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

[Alzael]

I have said it before and I will say it again, to no avail because none of you is capable of taking a crowbar to your minds and opening them a little, that I am not here to defend my beliefs nor to persuade you that they are true. I am here to correct your egregious misstatements of fact and your near total ignorance of history and literature. You really should be thanking me. How many others would bother?

But you present no facts, my little monkey. You present assertions. As for how many would bother, we get people like you all the time.

Well not exactly like you, they're usually a lot smarter and more educated, but we the level of raving lunacy tends to be about the same.

By the way.

So Jane, have you forgotten about this?

So no evidence at all then. Just assertions and fallacious appeals that what you say is true. Well that's certainly a bold defiance of established trends.

Still waiting. Come, caper for my amusement you little Floridian Monkey-Man.

[Omen]

Open your mind just a little and hear what I say, again. I am not here to defend my beliefs nor to persuade you that they are true.

This is equivocating and dishonest; you've made many assertions as if they were true regarding a history of which there is no relevant evidence for nor have you made any reasonable attempt to demonstrate that evidence.  You can't claim this, then suddenly insist that you're not here to 'defend' your beliefs or persuade anyone that they are true.  Doing so paints you as a hypocrite.

I am here to correct your egregious misstatements

You haven't corrected anyone, yet.  You move from post to post insulting others, dismissing rebuttals out of hand, ignoring the burden of proof for your own claims, and generally making a joke of your repeatedly claimed 'intellectualism'.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Here is part of an interesting debate between a professor and Richard Dawkins.  Dawkin is forced to admit the historical existance of Jesus. 

[Omen]

Dawkins is forced to admit the historical existance of Jesus.

That would be strange considering Dawkins never said jesus didn't exist, plus has written articles about jesus as if there was a historical figure associated with a jesus.

He doesn't fare much better in the rest of what is recorded either.

I strongly doubt your ability to interpret anything intellectually speaking, judging by your horrendous level of poor discourse and dishonesty on this forum.

Can you explain why dawkins would write about an existent historical figure years prior to this debate?

Can you explain why someone would construe the opposite of that intentionally?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20-atheists-for-jesus

[Seppuku]

Jane.

My mind is open, it was my open mindedness that led me to become an atheist in the first place, rather than just believing what I was told was true because people say it's true. Why do you think I've asked you the questions I've asked you? I want to know what your view is, so I can actually address them directly, rather than look for clues, get told we're wrong and idiots because we're basing our argument on something you've said or related to something you've said.

Your corrections require truth. You keep telling us we've got the bible wrong and that you're only correcting us on the bible, but yet you're unable to show us that your interpretation of the bible is the correct one. Before you can correct us on the bible, you've got be able to show us your interpretation is the right one. You've shown support for the Catholic Church and even referred to the Catholic perspective and as for your beliefs Catholicism is what we've had to go on. Why are we picking you up on your beliefs? Because it's relevent to your understanding of the bible, the understanding you're trying to correct us (and many Christians in the process) with. This is why the 'magic decoder ring' was mentioned very early on. You want to tell us we're reading it wrong...you yourself used literary interpretations of Romeo Juliet as a comparison (where nobody can claim authority on an interpretation, except the author, who is not in a position to speak for themself). You've yet to show us why our interpretation is wrong. I could call in Shirley Phelps and she'd sit here telling you exactly where you're wrong by her understanding, pull out all sorts of bible quotes defending her incredibly literalist and dogmatic approach to the bible with all of its darkest teachings and this cruel and vengeful version of Jesus backed by her family's extensive understanding and studying of the bible (which they have done for years) - kudos to the WBC nutters, you can make a claim and they know exactly where to look in the bible - sometimes remembering the exact passages off by heart. Their interpretation allows them to reject ALL that contradicts their interpretation regardless of history or science because of what they've read into it. Now, the two of you it would seem would have a VERY hard time of convincing us that your interpretation of the bible is the right one.

The actual interpretation of the bible used here (and I've actually mentioned this) is adaptable. Why is it adaptable? Because we don't claim to know the actual meaning. What we're arguing back to you are parts of the bible that contradict statements made. Usually to try and show that somebody might not in fact have the right interpretation. In essence People who see a vengeful God often ignore the peaceful God and people who see a peaceful God often ignore the vengeful one. What the Christian being challenged is expected to do is show us why their interpretation is right.


Unfortunately, given how you've made so many inaccurate assumptions about people on this forum (like my treating Magicmiles like dirt, which you've yet to show where I've done such a thing) and your general arrogance, I don't think I can trust your judgement. I mean you're so amazing to come here and show us where we're wrong and we should thank you for being so kind to do this, but you'd happily go around insulting us, being extremely rude and essentially telling us things about ourselves that are simply untrue.

[Timtheskeptic]

Open your mind just a little and hear what I say, again. I am not here to defend my beliefs nor to persuade you that they are true. I am here to correct your egregious misstatements of fact and your near total ignorance of history and literature. You really should be thanking me. How many others would bother? Take a wild guess. How much longer will I bother? You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Jane, from what i see, you're a very ignorant person. You refuse to listen to what other people may say, but instead you cover your eyars and pretend you're right and we're all stupid, blind, ignorwnt people for not being gullible enough to buy into nonsense with no evidence and for no good reason.

[Timtheskeptic]

"Lots of noise, no value?" Nice Jane, so you decided to give me a bad darwin because you cannot comprehend what anyone is trying to say? You're3 covering your ears and decided that we're just noise to you. Real smooth. It says a lot more about you than it does about us.

[Alzael]

Here is part of an interesting debate between a professor and Richard Dawkins.  Dawkin is forced to admit the historical existance of Jesus. 

Too bad you didn't use the rest of the debate. Lennox ranted through most of it and contradicted himself constantly.

The captions are cute though. Wrong, but cute.

[Add Homonym]

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/

Atheists will be interested in this. Christians will cover their eyes and go lalalalalala. It's a Jewish Christian, demolishing Paul. You get the best fanaticism from other religious nut jobs.

[Alzael]

I like this one better. Yours is too sane.

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm

[caveat_imperator]

"Lots of noise, no value?" Nice Jane, so you decided to give me a bad darwin because you cannot comprehend what anyone is trying to say? You're3 covering your ears and decided that we're just noise to you. Real smooth. It says a lot more about you than it does about us.

She does have a knack for projection, doesn't she?

[Graybeard]

Open your mind just a little and hear what I say, again.

M't:7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
M't:7:4: Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
M't:7:5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[Add Homonym]

I like this one better. Yours is too sane.

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm

That has the genuine PoE look about it. I like the blood red through the whole document, to emphasize all of it, because it is terribly important.

[Timtheskeptic]

"Lots of noise, no value?" Nice Jane, so you decided to give me a bad darwin because you cannot comprehend what anyone is trying to say? You're3 covering your ears and decided that we're just noise to you. Real smooth. It says a lot more about you than it does about us.

She does have a knack for projection, doesn't she?

Yes indeed.

[screwtape]

Inspiration of the Bible

Not helpful.

"It is enough for us to add that on several occasions the Church has defined the inspiration of the canonical books as an article of faith (see Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., n. 1787, 1809)."

"A Catholic may claim this additional certitude without falling into a vicious circle, because the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture; the historical value, belonging to Scripture in common with every other authentic and truthful writing, is enough to prove this. "

Is this supposed to be a joke?

" God is the author of Scripture, the inspired writer is the organ of the Holy Ghost, Scripture is the Word of God."

" In this way St. Thomas, starting from the traditional concept which makes the sacred writer an organ of the Holy Ghost, explains the subordination of his faculties to the action of the Inspirer by the philosophical theory of the instrumental cause."

"These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such."

"The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else...":

"What becomes of human liberty under the influence of Divine inspiration? In principle, it is agreed that the Inspirer can take away from man the power of refusal."

"To induce a person to write is not to take on oneself the responsibility of that writing, more especially it is not to become the author of that writing."

So, meat puppet.  This means the bible was literally written by god, who possessed the writers, and the scribe's hand did not move of his own accord, but rather as "the organ of the holy spook". 

Why was that so complicated?  Why did you have to make it so obscure?

[Add Homonym]

Jane is right, though. They are "primary" documents, because we don't have any evidence for Jesus outside them. Whatever definition of "primary" you have, it must be true, because there aren't any secondary documents.

Also, she said that bible scholarship "starts and stops" with the new testament documents. This is for the same reason: there is nothing else to look at.

Although the scholarly world has pretty much eviscerated the old testament, they are deadlocked in pointless arguments about the New Testament, because they use literary criticism to come up with dull, irrelevant conclusions.

The scholarly world has created the Anglican church, which doesn't believe any of it. Shelby Spong is their leader. The Catholic world is convinced that Jesus wore condoms or something. I'm a bit vague on the details.

[Hatter23]

The Catholic world is convinced that Jesus wore condoms or something. I'm a bit vague on the details.

The Catholic world is only clear on the detail that the Church was appointed by God and has athority, the trinity is real, and you need to have transubstantiated bread/flesh to get in to heaven, as to the rest, well they are a bit vague in the details.

[Ivellios]

There are works of fiction with other 'gospels.' This is known as "Fan Fiction."

[velkyn]

Based upon? I think not. He fulfilled the promises of scripture. This whole cherry-picking that goes on on both sides about which prophecies he did or did not fulfill makes me giggle. His Resurrection is the proof that he is the Messiah. In fact, we are told that just before he departed, he opened the minds of the apostles and explained to them how the scriptures had pointed to him.

  Hilarious.  No evidence for such events as the supposed resurrection at all, but Jane, you just keep claiming that they happened.    The OT does have prophecies of the messiah, and JC fails them.  That's why there are still Jews.     

His life is just about the best attested of any figure in the ancient world. the fact that you will simply not accept the documentary evidence that every historian accepts is simply a shame but is completely irrelevant.

and more lies that demonstrate your evident ignorance of the gospels.  We have four stories that are supposedly about the same man, but alas for you, they don't match in either events or in the personality of the character depicted and its relationship to the culture of the time.  Considering these facts (facts that you certainly do your best to ignore), there is no reason to think that your religion is accurate or is any source of any special morality.  Indeed, your actions show that simply being a Christian or a Roman Catholic does not make one particularly honest. 

Open your mind just a little and hear what I say, again. I am not here to defend my beliefs nor to persuade you that they are true. I am here to correct your egregious misstatements of fact and your near total ignorance of history and literature. You really should be thanking me. How many others would bother? Take a wild guess. How much longer will I bother? You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

  That’s so amusing to read.  Unfortunately, Jane, that’s all you’ve been doing, defending your beliefs and trying to tell us that you are the only TrueChristian.  I’ve shown repeatedly how you’ve done so from your own words and you seem to think that by ignoring them, everything will vanish and people will accept yet another baseless claim.  You have yet to correct anyone or show that they have made egregious misstatements.  You have not shown that anyone is more ignorant of history or literature then you and have indeed demonstrated your own ignorance.  There is no reason to thank someone who has acted like you, other than to thank you for confirming my opinion that religion makes no one good and makes many people worse.  I do like to you already getting your excuse ready for running away from the forum.  Really, the old “you aren’t worthy of my wonderfulness” claim?  That’s it?

[Add Homonym]

Every historian accepts that Jesus resurrected.

[Hatter23]

Every historian accepts that Jesus resurrected.

only if they are a true historian

[Add Homonym]

Every historian accepts that Jesus resurrected.

only if they are a true historian

only if they are a true historian on LSD.