A Challenge to Christians

[jaimehlers]

I'm not versed in linguistic or anthropological analysis, but would it be reasonable to assume that rival factions would probably pass down increasingly divergent versions of the original stories?

Indeed, that's what happened with early Christianity.  According to [wiki]Bart Ehrman[/wiki], author of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, there were at least four competing versions of Jesus; the Orthodox one which the Catholic church ultimately ended up using, a Jesus who was wholly human and never divine, a Jesus who was human and then became divine after dying, and a Jesus who was never human in the first place (you can see this version in the Gospel of John).

[jaimehlers]

I beg to differ, but there is a big difference in Central Africa in the 1970's and first century Jerusalem. There is a big difference between hearing a story and repeating it, and the discipline student went through learning Judaism.

What?  You think that contemporary Africans who rely on oral traditions don't have students who they train very carefully in order to make sure they could fulfill the role?  You think that they didn't make sure their students were disciplined and trained carefully?  Sure seems that way to me.

You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.

I don't believe this.  Did you really just try to claim that 1st century Hebrew students listened and learned, while contemporary Africans just hear and repeat?  No, that isn't going to fly.

[holybuckets]

I beg to differ, but there is a big difference in Central Africa in the 1970's and first century Jerusalem. There is a big difference between hearing a story and repeating it, and the discipline student went through learning Judaism.

What?  You think that the people who passed down oral traditions didn't have students who they trained very carefully in order to make sure they could fulfill the role?  You think that only the 1st century Hebrews ensured that their students were disciplined and trained carefully?  Sure seems that way to me.

You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.

I don't believe this.  Did you really just try to claim that 1st century Hebrew students listened and learned, while contemporary Africans just hear and repeat?  No, that isn't going to fly.

Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. Thanks

[jaimehlers]

Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. Thanks

That's the thing.  Your post didn't refute mine.  Your post referred to a statement by a Rabbi Stan Farr, apparently the contemporary leader of this Messianic Jewish sect, who lives in St. Paul, Minnesota (notably, where his synagogue is located as well).  Note that he has no scholarly credentials listed anywhere on his website except on his Contact page, where he states that he has spent 20 years teaching a "Hebraic First Century understanding of Scriptures".

In short, you attempted to use this man's opinion of 1st century discipleship to claim that it was substantively different than other oral traditions.  Not only that, but it in no way actually establishes a difference between 1st century Hebrew oral traditions and contemporary African oral traditions.

[Astreja]

Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. Thanks

Why should he?  Why should any of us bother giving you anything, HB?  All  you're going to do is dismiss the most carefully researched and written response as "opinion," and try to dump the burden of proof on the negative side.

Personally, Holybuckets, I am of the opinion that you came here for the sole purpose of angering and baiting people who do not believe as you do.  I don't think you ever had any intention of seriously examining evidence that disagrees with your current POV.  You're using your precious gospel as a bludgeon, secure in your belief that *you* have a free ticket to heaven and can do whatever the fuck you want in the meantime, including spouting mass quantities of hatred masquerading as discussion questions.

(Springy G tears HB's page out of the Book of Life and runs it through Her crosscut shredder) I think Matthew 7:23 is particularly apt in this context.   

[holybuckets]

Jaime, did you read my post refuting yours. Can you please give something more than your opinion. Thanks

Why should he?  Why should any of us bother giving you anything, HB?  All  you're going to do is dismiss the most carefully researched and written response as "opinion," and try to dump the burden of proof on the negative side.

Personally, Holybuckets, I am of the opinion that you came here for the sole purpose of angering and baiting people who do not believe as you do.  I don't think you ever had any intention of seriously examining evidence that disagrees with your current POV.  You're using your precious gospel as a bludgeon, secure in your belief that *you* have a free ticket to heaven and can do whatever the fuck you want in the meantime, including spouting mass quantities of hatred masquerading as discussion questions.

(Springy G tears HB's page out of the Book of Life and runs it through Her crosscut shredder) I think Matthew 7:23 is particularly apt in this context.   

I appreciate your opinion, however, I think you can see that I have provided some very credible information in this discussion. Again, feel free to give your rebuttal, granted, I wish it contained a logical refute with scholarly citations.

[Astreja]

I appreciate your opinion, however, I think you can see that I have provided some very credible information in this discussion.

No; I didn't see you post anything even remotely credible.  (Springy G empties the shredder, and Holybuckets' eternal salvation, into one of Her cats' litter boxes)

[holybuckets]

I appreciate your opinion, however, I think you can see that I have provided some very credible information in this discussion.

No; I didn't see you post anything even remotely credible.  (Springy G empties the shredder, and Holybuckets' eternal salvation, into one of Her cats' litter boxes)

Can you please then dispute my findings with your credible sources, instead of your opinion, and give a little more scholarly response than Springy G and her cat box. I have to admit, that is up their with the Time Cube, Bat boy, and Osiris.

[jaimehlers]

As opposed to Rabbi Stan Farr, "expert" on 1st century Christian Scripture, who doesn't even seem to have a single scholarly paper to his name?  Oh, didn't you say something along the lines that you would only use people who had actually published in scholarly journals?

[holybuckets]

As opposed to Rabbi Stan Farr, "expert" on 1st century Christian Scripture, who doesn't even seem to have a single scholarly paper to his name?  Oh, didn't you say something along the lines that you would only use people who had actually published in scholarly journals?

He is a Rabbi, who writes on what it takes to be a Rabbi.

[Astreja]

Can you please then dispute my findings with your credible sources, instead of your opinion...

There are no findings to dispute.  None of your sources are up to our standards; hence, no action on our part is required.

[jaimehlers]

He is a Rabbi, who writes on what it takes to be a Rabbi.

Irrelevant.  You agreed to use sources that had published in scholarly journals.  That means you lied, since here you are, using someone who's never published a single scholarly paper of any sort.

Why should anyone bother to try to have a discussion (never mind a debate) with you?  You've been verbally abusive to virtually everyone here, you constantly try to dismiss anything that someone presents unless it's 'scholarly' or 'historical' (and even then, you'll use any excuse you think you can get away with to dismiss it anyway), you routinely act as if the evidence you present is foolproof (dismissing any rebuttal of it, often without even bothering to answer the rebuttal), you've basically told people that you won't respond to them if they press you too hard on things you don't want to talk about, and now you've been caught lying.  And that's just scratching the surface

You complain about the way atheists supposedly treat you, but you act worse than that.  It's not nice to accuse someone of hypocrisy, but in your case, the shoe certainly fits.

[kin hell]

Why should anyone bother to try to have a discussion (never mind a debate) with you?  You've been verbally abusive to virtually everyone here, you constantly try to dismiss anything that someone presents unless it's 'scholarly' or 'historical' (and even then, you'll use any excuse you think you can get away with to dismiss it anyway), you routinely act as if the evidence you present is foolproof (dismissing any rebuttal of it, often without even bothering to answer the rebuttal), you've basically told people that you won't respond to them if they press you too hard on things you don't want to talk about, and now you've been caught lying.  And that's just scratching the surface

You complain about the way atheists supposedly treat you, but you act worse than that.  It's not nice to accuse someone of hypocrisy, but in your case, the shoe certainly fits.

self proclaimed troll behaves like a troll, I'm not surprised you are exasperated jaime

[Seppuku]

Either holybuckets is extremely ignorant (perhaps selectively so) or just a successful troll. Either way, there's no way you're going to make progress, because his idea of evidence, whether he genuinely believes it or not, is simply words on a page, his evidence is merely made up of claims.

So, I guess the way to counter it is to make our own claims. So, I know everything holybuckets is saying is false because Thor told me and I know the true gods are the Norse ones. Fuck it, I cannot be arsed being an atheist, personally knowing Thor and Odin really doesn't help my stance as an atheist, it's like not believe the chair you're sat on doesn't exist.

[Anfauglir]

Back to the discussion, Are we in agreement that God cannot be proven nor disproved by scientific methods? What are some areas God may be proven or disproved? Are there any?

That question is impossible to answer without knowing what this "god" is that you speak of.  Wheels asked:

do you think your god acts in the world today?

...which was on the right lines, but doesn't actually advance us.  The question I would have asked would be "please define your god as you understand it, and how it interacts with the world today".

Until you have answered that, it is impossible for me to answer your question.  I think the answer is that "if there is a god, it can be proved by scientific method" (which, incidentally, does NOT just mean scientific equipment), but without knowing exactly what your god is , I can't say for sure.

For the moment then, I will say "yes - I think god CAN be proved or disproved using scientific methodology".  And the first step towards doing that is to define the god that we are testing for - as I believe you know full well.

[holybuckets]

Thanks for your comments. It seems that there were no objections to most of the points I made.
So, we are in agreement, and I would like to put into evidence the following facts on 1st Century Jerusalem:
1.  Jerusalem was primarily Jewish in the 1st half of the 1st century. The people lived by the Jewish religion and Jewish customs.
2. The population of Jerusalem was 97% illiterate. The vast majority did not know how to read or write.
There was some objection to the third point I was trying to make
3. Education was transmitted orally
I do not feel anyone denied that, however there was discussion to the reliability of oral transmission and the fact the message could be changed over a period of time.

[holybuckets]

The next material I would like to present as evidence is the fact that there were not a lot of books written in the 1st century, much less survive. The century produced some major events; however there were very few historians to write on the subject.
My question is: how many books were written about those events, specifically the one’s that took place within the Roman Empire? Here are three events, two of which I would like to focus on now.
1. 30 AD. Resurrection of Jesus. I am going to defer, and write more on this later.
2. 64 AD. Great Fire of Rome
The Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires this world has ever seen. Rome was arguably the richest, largest, and most powerful city in the world at the time. The city caught fire in 64 AD and reports say that the fire burned for about 6 days. [1]
3. 70 AD. The Destruction of the Jewish Temple
This took place during the Roman-Jewish War. The Romans attacked the city of Jerusalem, wiped out the Temple, killed over 1 million Jews, and sold almost 100,000 as slaves. The Jews lost their homeland, their population, their temple, and everything they had. [2]
The question: How many books were written on the subjects?
1. Tacitus is the only contemporary author to write on the Great Fire of Rome, whose works survived. In his work “The Annals”, Tacitus devotes one paragraph to the subject.
According to Tacitus, ten of the fourteen districts of Rome burned; three districts were completely destroyed and the other seven suffered serious damage. [3]
 The only other contemporaneous historian to mention the fire was Pliny the Elder, who wrote about it in passing. [4]
Incidentally, Tacitus wrote the Annals, which referenced the fire in 116 AD, or 52 years after the event.
2. Josephus is the only contemporary historian to mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
The point is that there were not a lot of books written in the 1st century. The great fire of Rome sees one author, Tacitus, devote one paragraph to it. Josephus is the only author to write on the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29
[3] Tacitus, P. C., & Woodman, A. J. (2006). Tacitus, Annals. R. H. Martin (Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_of_Rome

[Astreja]

So, I know everything holybuckets is saying is false because Thor told me and I know the true gods are the Norse ones. Fuck it, I cannot be arsed being an atheist, personally knowing Thor and Odin really doesn't help my stance as an atheist, it's like not believe the chair you're sat on doesn't exist.

  My little Brother and Dad say "Hei!"  And may the chair be a cozy one near the banquet table at Valhalla.  (I'll be in the woodwinds section of the pit orchestra, in between Valkyrie runs to collect various brave mortals.)

[wheels5894]

We ought , perhaps, note that whilst there may have been a lot of oral education, the texts of the OT were basically already close to becoming canon. The Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed around 200BCE and formed the basis of Jerome's translation into Latin, the Vulgate. Equally, the Dead Sea Scrolls contained lots of scrolls of biblical books in the version found in the LXX as well as in the Hebrew Bible. (jeremiah is much longer in the LXX for example). 

[Anfauglir]

The thought occurs to me.....

Even assuming for one moment that the designated few were word-perfect in their passing on of the Word, that does not for one moment assume that everyone was.  Unless there was absolutely NO discussion of "The Word" outside of the Temple, it would have been the case that Priest would speak to the congregation....who would then, perhaps, go home and tell their children the stories - and with NO training, perhaps errors would creep in there?

And what happens, then, when one of those children grows up and - unlike their father - learns to write, and sets down the version of the Word that THEY heard?  And possibly, once written, that version starts to carry with it a lot more weight than the spoken version that the elders say is true.....after all, words on paper do not change, do they?  And, once written, why bother to learn them?

So I can easily see how even a perfect oral tradition could be superceded by imperfect written versions - which would also explain why we have multiple gospels with subtle (and not so subtle) differences.  A perfect oral tradtion should surely mean that we would have only one gospel?  Unless we accept that the four gospels are, indeed, 100% accurate reflections of a perfect oral tradition that began from a false understanding in the first place.....which is hardly a preferable option for anyone championing the oral tradition in the first place.

[Astreja]

The Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed around 200BCE...

...and therefore would be available to the Gospel writers so that they could plagiarize, uh, "harmonize" the Jesus story and make it line up with OT messianic prophesies.

And of course, if the LXX was a translation of the Tanakh 200 years BCE, it stands to reason that there were written versions of the Tanakh at 200 BCE that it was based upon.  So much for the myth of the rabbinical students learning orally -- Those Hebrew scriptures were written for someone to read.

[wheels5894]

The Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed around 200BCE...

...and therefore would be available to the Gospel writers so that they could plagiarize, uh, "harmonize" the Jesus story and make it line up with OT messianic prophesies.

And of course, if the LXX was a translation of the Tanakh 200 years BCE, it stands to reason that there were written versions of the Tanakh at 200 BCE that it was based upon.  So much for the myth of the rabbinical students learning orally -- Those Hebrew scriptures were written for someone to read.

Exactly and, because there is a translation error in the LXX which Matthew copies, we know that Matthew used the LXX when writing this gospel. Matthew gets the word 'virgin' from the Isaiah quote where the Hebrew bible has only 'young woman'. So we know that not only Matthew was using the Greek version (he probably didn't read Hebrew) but that the whole virgin birth thing is based on a mistranslation!

[median]

So you quoted a statement with which you agree, and called it the definition of ignorance...?

Please allow me to put the post in context for you, since you obviously failed to read before you spoke. Which, by the way, is a sign of ignorance.
The posted criticized me for not being able to prove my religious faith with scientific evidence. I responded that this was ignorant, since one cannot prove religious faith with scientific evidence.

Your religion makes testable claims (such as that all who believe in Christ will be able to do miracles). Do you believe your God has any dealings in the real world? Does he interact in the real world in any way? If so, then it's testable!

Faith is not a pathway to truth. It is simply believing without evidence (credulity dressed up). Anybody can "just have faith" in anything (for terrible reasons). You've started with your conclusion (and are now trying to defend your desperate assumption) and that is backwards.

How can "faith" stand up to "scientific" investigation? Can you explain this one to me please?
Faith is something that cannot be proven scientifically. Hence the word faith.

This is a category error (first off). It isn't "faith" that we are disproving (per se). It is the testable claims of your false religion (which are irrational and absurd). Secondly, I reject your definition of faith. Faith is believing something when you do not have sufficient evidence to do so. US: "How do you know God created us?" YOU: "Oh, I don't know, I just have faith."

Faith is just gullibility in a mask. That is all.

[jaimehlers]

Holybuckets won't be able to see or write any further posts in this topic until he gets back from the ER.  This is probably just as well.  It's clear from his latest post that he intends to keep going the way he's been going - in essence, to argue using the narrowest definitions he can in order to 'prove' that the Bible is accurate and thus usable as a primary source (rather than a book of mythology), and to deflect anything that doesn't fit his own particular biases.  Maybe he'll be better about it once he gets out of the ER, though I'm not holding out too many hopes for that.

To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked at the [wiki]historical reliability of the Gospels[/wiki] wiki page.  Contrary to holybuckets's assertions, the scholarly consensus appears to be that the Gospels (and Acts, which is in many ways a continuation of the Gospels) are a mix of historical and mythological information.  That means you can't rely on anything that's written in them without examining them very closely - and even then, some of them have serious problems (such as that Mark messed up quite a bit on geography).

In short, even if there was a historical Jesus, it is unlikely that the miracles (including the resurrection) were genuine.  Especially given that Paul never wrote of any actual miracles (except in the past tense), but instead things that probably happened due to natural causes or human intervention - or else things that he thought would happen in the future (and clearly didn't).  In short, it's much more likely that most of the mythological parts in the Bible were cribbed from other sources (which certainly explains the similarities between the Gospels and other myths).

It is entirely possible that there was a Jesus (more likely Yeshua or Joshua), but he was probably a would-be reformer of Judaism who stepped on the toes of the religious authorities too many times, so they had him killed (and, given that he was probably pretty minor, explains why there were no records of him).  Then, the surviving apostles, out of their minds with grief, believed they saw their teacher alive again - and thus Christianity was born.  Though, I can't really say whether this version happened or not.  The actual events have been buried under so much mythology and tradition that it's impossible to really unravel things now.

[naemhni]

Holybuckets has been confined to the Emergency Room and therefore cannot (yet) post replies in this thread.  Those wishing to assist him with his "difficulties" in posting should head to the ER to engage him there, should he choose to do so.

[riley2112]

Riley2112,

Why would you seek help from an atheist? First of all, it appalls me that these people would attempt to pull you away from your faith. Just because they don't have any faith doesn't mean  they have to try to drag you away form God. Secondly, they cannot be trusted.
Polls show that people don't trust atheists.

"Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust

Please do not trust these people. They argue in ignorance, admittedly they have no evidence or proof to back up what they believe. And for that matter they cannot even figure out what they believe. Being a Christian is simple. You believe in the Risen Christ. You do not have to have all the answers like the atheists want to make you believe that you do. Remember, they don't have any answers.

Sorry ,, I don't sign on here very much,, However from time to time I like to check things out. You asked why I would seek help from an atheist. I didn't. The first time I came to this site I , like most Christians who come to this site, came to show the lost Atheist the error of their ways. Well you can now see how that worked out. However unlike many Christians ( or so called Christians) that visits this site. I came with an open mind. At first I found the people here rude and closed minded. Mostly because they would not believe the way I felt they should. I asked them questions that they answered. They ask me questions that I tried to answer, but most of my answers ended with "because the Bible says so". In other words, no answer at all. As for Atheist not being trusted or liked. I know many people that I like and after found out that they were Atheist. So, are you saying that I should not like someone because they are Atheist, or black , or are from a different country? Are you saying that I should not like someone because they are different than me, believe different than I do. That makes them a bad person?? You also said that they have no evidence or proof to back up what they believe. What evidence or proof do you have. Now please understand that something inside of me believes in a Creator. But blind faith in anything is foolish. After leaving this site I started trying to answer some of the questions that those bad Atheist asked me. What I found scared me, made me sad and pissed me off. The biggest problem I have is with the bible. Do you really believe the Bible word for word? I mean really?? All these people have done to me is to make me think. And someone that truly thinks is a danger to all religions. And they should be. Religion scares me. Because of religion this world is still at war. I am still searching for the Creator. But when and if I find a God I want the true God. And if I don't find him, How true can he be. Maybe it is time you start thinking. Are you believing in a god just because others are? Kinda like you don't trust or like Atheists because polls tell you not to. I guess my question to you is. Would you believe in God if the polls told you he was not real?

[lux et veritas]

Christians are never commanded to do miracles. Only God  can perform miracles. I suggest that you review the text.

[One Above All]

Christians are never commanded to do miracles.

Probably true. I wouldn't know, since I don't know the entire Bible by heart.

Only God  can perform miracles.

Not true.

they will pick up snakeswith their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands onsick people, and they will get well."

Source: http://biblehub.com/mark/16-18.htm
Cue context excuse.

I suggest that you review the text.

I say the same thing to you.

[lux et veritas]

Mark 16:18 is an observation, "they will handle deadly snakes , lay hands on the sick and they will recover .
Christians are not commanded to handle the snakes or heal the sick.