Mods discretionOriginally Posted by amazzin
Deadpan Snarker
Mods discretion
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
You're ahead a season. Tis the season for Latkes. Yummy!!!!!!!!!
Unhappy is he who mistakes the branch for the tree, the shadow for the substance.
Deadpan Snarker
Fattening, too. Oy vey.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Post Tenebras Lux
I don't deny the Gospels are theological. But I do deny that they don't concern themselves with what actually happened in history.
And Licona doesn't even use the empty tomb as one of his historical bedrock of facts.Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
What if it's not a religious text? What if the only account we had of an historical event was from somebody who was heavily involved in that event? Would that source be credible?I can't see something as historical if it's written by a believer (of any faith) and that's our sole source, no.
Well you said oldest. I guess you meant oldest in the sense that 50 AD is older than 80 AD.I know Paul's are the earliest.
Again, what do you want me to say? It's true. I'm not claiming that when the majority of scholars believe something that makes it true. I am saying that it does carry some weight, though.Again with the 'most scholars'.
I would argue not. Based on the fact that it's mentioned in all the Gospels, Paul's letters, and General Epistles. The account of the dead saints rising when Jesus died is only found in Matthew. If the account of Jesus' resurrection was only found in one letter of Paul or in one episode of one Gospel, then it would be more likely a legend.Um what about him coming back to life? That also legend?
Yes, I think this is the main reason why people reject the Gospels out of hand. If you don't believe in God or miracles, and are committed to naturalism, you are not readily going to believe a report of a person rising from the dead. But, of course, this is a philosophical objection, not a historical objection."anti-supernatural bias"?
What constitutes 'extraordinary evidence'? I think a lot of times the appeal to extraordinary evidence is an appeal to unreasonable requirements. Like when people who don't believe in God because they require extraordinary evidence. What they really want is something like God coming to them personally and saying 'I exist and now let me show you how I made the world and everything in it' or something like that. It's better to just deal with the (sometimes limited) evidence we have and assess which explanation best accounts for what we know.Let's put it like this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I didn't say that. But I don't think there was no moving at all. Lot's of people traveled back then and it wouldn't be very hard to investigate the claim Paul makes.Sure, everyone was moving all over the place.
I don't think this is the objection you make it out to be.Except that the event in question takes place decades before in a faraway land where people don't even speak the same language. I think he made a safe bet.
It's good evidence that the story is not made up, yes. Another piece of evidence is that the story (at least in Mark) doesn't show any signs of being an embellished legend. It's a simple story.Therefore, they found an empty tomb? An awful lot hangs on that premise.
I don't claim it's proven like gravity is proven. I'm saying there are very good lines of evidence that make it more likely than not that there was an empty tomb. It's fine that you disagree.The problem is that we still don't know that the tomb was, in fact, empty. We only have the NT's statement of this. The matter is not proven, and I don't believe it.
I don't think he does. He's apparently an agnostic on what happened to Jesus. He doesn't believe we can know whether he was raised or not. That doesn't seem to me to be a maverick, radical belief.Oh I'm sure he knows.
I'm only reporting what is the scholarly consensus. If Bart Ehrman doesn't know of a single credible historian who denies the existence of Jesus, I think it's fair to say it's not a valid belief any more than the denial of the holocaust is a valid belief.Now you're the judge of what's "valid"?
That's the thing, he didn't make such a big splash in the wider Roman world. Jesus was a man who lived his whole life in one small corner of the Roman empire and died a criminal's death. He didn't lead an armed uprising against the Roman powers. That's not anything special that official Roman historians would take notice of.Well, yeah. If he made such a big splash in his lifetime I would expect someone else to mention him.
Yeah, I just disagree. I don't like the language of proof, but I would say that it is fairly good evidence that the event happened in history if it was established that the account in the OT was one that was concerned with history. This is the essence of our disagreements.If the only record we had was the OT? No, the event count not be proved.
Every sin has death in it
I'm not saying it's a lie. All I've been saying is that the bible (any bible, including my own) is not a history book and everything in it is not necessarily true (although we may believe that it is!)
Let's start from the top shall we? We both agree that God (G-d) exists.
The accuracy of the old testament, in your case called the Tanak, irrefutable. We know that Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. With the massora (parva, magna, and finalis) they kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word and paragraph. They even had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity - Scribes , lawyers and massoretes.
The book of the OT were inspired by God and had the stamp of authority on them from the beginning. Through long usage in the Jewish community their authority was recognized, and in due time they were ass to a collection known as the "canonical books". Evidence supports that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC. A reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the 4th century BC onward were convinced that the "voice of God had ceased to speak directly". In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without prophets, there can be no scriptural revelation. You can read this in 1 Maccabees 14:41.
Then there's the Talmud which you should already know is a collection of rabbinical always, law decisions, comments on the law of Moses that preserves the oral tradition of the Jewish people. Tosefta Yadaim 3:5 says that the book was divinely inspired and therefore Holy. So much so, that the handlers, had to wash their hands after touching the holy pages. "By declaring that the Scriptures made their hands unclean, the rabbis protected them from careless and irreverent treatment, since it is obvious that no one would be apt to handle them heedlessly ..." A book that did not do this was not from God.
.
AmazzinThe Messiah ROSE from the DEAD to give you HIS LIFE WITHOUT LIMITS and HIS LIFE WITHOUT END.
I was not necessarily talking about proof regarding Jesus, but proof regarding the entirety of the OT and NT in regards to archaeology. More so regarding the OT, which would be your Tanak...sorry, so when I say OT, that is what I mean. But discoveries, that otherwise would indeed be considered historical proof of something, in this case, the Bible, be it the Old or New Testament.
I am not trying to pull a tricky Jesus card on you, just simply determine if there is legitimate support for considering the Bible an accurate document of historical events and people, including but not limited to Jesus.
Ok, but you have eliminated your own scriptures with that statement. As amazzin put forward, great care was taken to preserve these writings. Your a pretty smart guy, that is obvious. A lot smarter than me. You must consider that the very text you trust to guide your life and existence to be more than just....maybe accurate?
Come on, surely there is more basis than assumption, or blind faith, that the writing and history within is reliable and accurate?
You said this in another post, somewhere...since this applies to both our sacred text, it seems a bit scary to me, to reduce the very writings we rely on to guide our decisions regarding the entrusting our eternal destiny, to being the propaganda of believers of that very same propaganda?It isn't a book about supernatural events written by believers trying to promulgate a new faith. That applies to my bible no less than yours.
I suggest that if the Bible could with stand the same scrutiny that any other historical text with stands, that it is indeed then, accurate history, a truthfully written text, and there fore worthy of consideration for more than the blind faith of those following propaganda. In other words, instead of limiting the Bible, Old and New Testaments, to a bunch of supernatural writings, but that you do some investigation, see if it does not withstand the scrutiny of any other texts that are indeed considered accurate history. Supernatural events that really happened would be history, being supernatural does not remove them from being historical events.
This is what archaeologist have said, or what has been said about archaeological findings:
Nelson Glueck, a Jewish archaeologist wrote: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discorver has ever controvered a biblical reference."
W.F. Albright: "....Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history"(Albright, AP, 127,128)
F.F. Bruce: "Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional eveidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has convirmed the New Testament record (Bruce, ACNT, as cited in Henry, RB, 331)
Deadpan Snarker
But we're not terribly interested in those parts, are we? The important parts deal with Jesus as the messiah, not life in first century Judea.
Great, neither do I!
And Licona doesn't even use the empty tomb as one of his historical bedrock of facts.
We're discussing religious texts though.What if it's not a religious text?
'Most scholars' can be wrong too.Again, what do you want me to say? It's true. I'm not claiming that when the majority of scholars believe something that makes it true. I am saying that it does carry some weight, though.
This is a theological point. This is why a religious text is not a history book.I would argue not.
Um, people of other religions reject the bible too. Not because they don't believe in miracles. Because they don't believe the miracles described in the NT are true.Yes, I think this is the main reason why people reject the Gospels out of hand. If you don't believe in God or miracles, and are committed to naturalism, you are not readily going to believe a report of a person rising from the dead.
You know what's not 'extraordinary evidence'? "It was found by women so it must have happened". Weak, very weak.What constitutes 'extraordinary evidence'?
Shrug. He was describing events that happened a generation earlier. Not as easy to check as one would think. Especially once the revolt in Judea really got going.
I didn't say that. But I don't think there was no moving at all. Lot's of people traveled back then and it wouldn't be very hard to investigate the claim Paul makes.
And I think it is. So there.I don't think this is the objection you make it out to be.
It sounds like a legend to me.It's good evidence that the story is not made up, yes. Another piece of evidence is that the story (at least in Mark) doesn't show any signs of being an embellished legend. It's a simple story.
All written by we don't know who, we don't know where, edited by ??? before finally making it into canon in 325 or so.I don't claim it's proven like gravity is proven. I'm saying there are very good lines of evidence that make it more likely than not that there was an empty tomb.
Not 'hard evidence' by any means.
You cite him as a 'Jewish scholar' so that makes him pretty maverick.I don't think he does. He's apparently an agnostic on what happened to Jesus. He doesn't believe we can know whether he was raised or not. That doesn't seem to me to be a maverick, radical belief.
You just love this comparison.
I'm only reporting what is the scholarly consensus. If Bart Ehrman doesn't know of a single credible historian who denies the existence of Jesus, I think it's fair to say it's not a valid belief any more than the denial of the holocaust is a valid belief.
It's not making any headway with me, and I already said why. So please stop with it already.
You'd think all the miracles and rising from the dead would get noticed, hey.That's the thing, he didn't make such a big splash in the wider Roman world.
Or maybe I have a more rigorous definition of what constitutes a "proof".
Yeah, I just disagree. I don't like the language of proof, but I would say that it is fairly good evidence that the event happened in history if it was established that the account in the OT was one that was concerned with history. This is the essence of our disagreements.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Deadpan Snarker
OK now see, here's the thing. Just because a book was copied very carefully so that it matched the original does not mean that the original was correct either.
If the only evidence of some event is the bible, it is not a "historical event". It is an event we believe to be true, which is not the same thing.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Deadpan Snarker
Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Correct. My bible is no more a historical document than yours.Ok, but you have eliminated your own scriptures with that statement.
Ah, you are too kind. God bless.Your a pretty smart guy, that is obvious. A lot smarter than me.
I believe that it is accurate. faith.You must consider that the very text you trust to guide your life and existence to be more than just....maybe accurate?
It's not completely disjointed from fact. We do know that a Jewish kingdom existed in Israel 3000 years ago, for example.Come on, surely there is more basis than assumption, or blind faith, that the writing and history within is reliable and accurate?
They were written by believers who wanted to spread their ideas. Whether one follows them or not depends on whether one believes the ideas they were trying to spread.
You said this in another post, somewhere...since this applies to both our sacred text, it seems a bit scary to me, to reduce the very writings we rely on to guide our decisions regarding the entrusting our eternal destiny, to being the propaganda of believers of that very same propaganda?
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Coffee Break
Fenris do you believe that Adam and everything else was created in six days?
Deadpan Snarker
Yup.
But I won't present the bible as proof.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Coffee Break
Then for you that becomes a historical fact. Is that not true?
Deadpan Snarker
No. It's something I believe.
JFK getting shot is a historical fact.
See the difference?
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
Well, that is true, they did want to spread their ideas, but it was pretty much written to those who already had heard their ideas, believed them, and were just receiving further instructions. Many of which were indeed eye witnesses to the events and would know either way if the writers were lying or what. But of course, I guess eye witnesses are invalid because the writings also contain supernatural events.
You are basically saying that the writers of the scriptures lacked the integrity to be honest simply because they also believed what they were writing to be true. However, the fact that the writers were speaking their ideas does not change that many things were stated that were either historical fact or they weren't, and if they were not, then we have a solid reason to consider the ideas faulty. BUT, if the listed events are provable, then we have reason to consider the writers as having integrity regarding their ideas.
And archaeology, as I quoted, has never proven the Bible inaccurate, only proven it accurate. So with that kind of record so far, we have a pretty good foundation for believing it to be accurate.
The problem is, you do not want to consider that the OT and....gasp...the NT may actually be historically accurate because then you would have to face the events as proven fact as opposed to just ideas that people either choose to believe, or reject...your chicken!!!
P.S. if font is itty bitty, let me know, having some technical issues with my copy/paste abilitiesWHY IS THERE NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR PERSONAL WRITINGS TO VERIFY JESUS' HISTORICITY
The Bible has been accused on several occasions of committing historical errors but has later been proven accurate through archaeological finds. For instance, the Old Testament mentions a tribe of people known as the Hittites. Skeptics pointed out there was no such civilization in history yet in the 19th century records of the Hittites were discovered within Assyrian ruins. Today we know a lot about the Hittites such as their language, craftsmanship, geography, and empire chronology. The New Testament mentions the pool of Bethesda as a place where Jesus healed a paralytic. No such location was known to exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem as a place where the sick would gather to seek healing. Just because an artifact has not yet been recovered does not mean none exist. Lastly, though the discovery of an artifact may be interesting, it would never be enough for the devout skeptic. Even a non-biased archaeologist would have a hard time proving a relic's authenticity.
In regards to personal writings, Socrates, for example, exists only in the writings of his students. There is not a single document still in existence that contains his original works. If we apply the same logic with Socrates skeptics use to determine Jesus' historicity, we must assume Socrates was a figment of the imagination of his students. But if we are to accept Socrates as a historical figure based on four secondary accounts, we must also accept Jesus as a historical figure whose life was documented by His disciples, historians, and those who rejected His divine claims. When skeptics claim there is a difference between a man such as Socrates and Jesus, they would be absolutely correct- Jesus had more accounts written about Him.
WHAT ABOUT THE LACK OF EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING HIS LIFE?
Critics mention two important events that appear not to be recorded in secular history: the darkness that
occurred after Jesus' crucifixion and the slaughter of the innocents by Herod the Great. As stated previously in
this discussion, the midday darkness which occurred after Jesus' death is mentioned by the secular historian
Thallus and Phlegon (though they try to dismiss the event as a solar eclipse). The event is also mentioned by
Christian apologists Origen and Philopon but I only focused on the secular accounts due to their critical origins.
The shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would have recorded
such an event. Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those he believed had ambitions of
attaining his throne. Herod even murdered his two sons of Maccabean heritage for fear they would overthrow
him. History shows Herod was a very paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his
position. If he had ordered the slaughter of all males under two years of age, it would have been well within his
character. We must also realize that Bethlehem was a small village- not a raging metropolis. If the village only
had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the number of males under the age
of two around twenty in number.
But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event. Where is the actual evidence that this
event occurred? If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew reliable, we can accept his version of the
events. But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:
"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years
to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s
son.'" Macrobius
Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking place in Syria and
combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons. Because Palestine was considered a Syrian province at the
time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of Bethlehem. Due to the difference between Macrobius' and
Matthew's account and knowing Macrobius was a pagan, we can assume Macrobius used an independent source
for his writings.
The Evidence . com
Deadpan Snarker
The NT was not written by eyewitnesses. It was written down much later. The earliest books were written a generation later; the later books at least a generation after that.
Let me ask you a question. Is every holy book from every religion correct?You are basically saying that the writers of the scriptures lacked the integrity to be honest simply because they also believed what they were writing to be true.
Whether the events are provable or not is irrelevant. They have not been proved.However, that fact that the writers were speaking their ideas does not change that many things were stated that were either historical fact or they weren't, and if they were not, then we have a solid reason to consider the ideas faulty. BUT, if the listed events are provable, then we have reason to consider the writers as having integrity regarding their ideas.
No, this is not true. For example, we have enough evidence to believe that the Assyrians did in fact besiege Jerusalem. Does that mean that 185,000 soldiers died in a single night? No, we can't prove that happened.And archaeology, as I quoted, has never proven the Bible inaccurate, only proven it accurate. So with that kind of record so far, we have a pretty good foundation for believing it to be accurate.
Just because some events in the bible can be proved historical doesn't mean that every event in the bible can be proved historical. Understand?
They may be historically accurate. Or they may not.The problem is, you do not want to consider that the OT and....gasp...the NT may actually be historically accurate
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."
Jeremiah 31:9
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks