I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!
Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?
If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?
If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?
If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?
Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.
Can you PLEASE provide evidence?
Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?
Moderator: Moderators
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
-
WinePusher
Post #1691
Back from where? I never left.no evidence no belief wrote:Oh, hey winepusher. You're back!
Last time we spoke? I don't remember ever speaking to you. Can you link the thread you're talking about? I'm guessing you were that user who got banned huh, and you made this new account.no evidence no belief wrote:So, did you realize that 100 years is NOT one generation by any sensible definition of the word as used on planet earth? Talking of ridiculous arguments, that's what you were saying last time we spoke. So please let me know if you realized your mistake, or if we need to go over basic arithmetic and basic human reproductive timing again.
Well, you actually need to understand it in order to destroy it and you clearly don't understand it. The moral argument does not attempt to prove any specific miracle, the argument attempts to prove the existence of a transcendent moral law giver (God) by using the existence of objective (absolute) morality as evidence.no evidence no belief wrote:I will not talk about the moral argument as a vague concept. If you want to discuss it, present it here, either in your own words, or as a link to somebody else's wording that you concur with, and then I'll destroy it for you.
Yup.no evidence no belief wrote:I apologize for thinking that the talking donkey is part of Christianity. I got confused.
I think I remember now. You're this guy huh: notachance. If banned users are able to make new accounts then I would like to see Slopeshoulder and Grumpy back here.no evidence no belief wrote:For a moment I thought that Numbers 22 was part of the Bible, but thanks to your clarification, I now realize it's one of the chapters in Harry Potter. My bad.
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1692
[Replying to Goose]
Koine Greek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Testament Greek
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
De novo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In general usage, de novo is a Latin expression meaning "from the beginning," "afresh," "anew," "beginning again."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_novo
Next:
A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Matthew, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown.
"But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31."
"But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles—in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two—though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels—in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all—or our Greek Matthew is itself the original. "
"Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it."
"It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."'
http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm
So, how do we know that the Koine Greek Matthew which appears in all modern copies of the NT was in fact written by the apostle Matthew? "All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors." This is what is known as Christian tradition. In other words, it's true because Christians believe it and have declared it to be so. And what does the historical evidence have to say? Prior to the formation of the Catholic church in the 4th century, we have the statements from Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Eusebius which all indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel. And that Gospel was written in the HEBREW LANGUAGE. But what evidence do we have which would serve to establish that the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in perfect Koine Greek? NONE! We have no evidence to indicate and therefore nothing to establish the identity of the author of the Koine Greek gospel TRADITIONALLY attributed to Matthew. Like so much of Christian tradition, it is so because Christians have declared it to BE so! So who REALLY wrote the Gospel of Matthew contained in all modern Bibles? “NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS!�
Here is an interesting example of just exactly who wrote what derived from NT times, as paraphrased (for brevity) by Wikipedia. It's known as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it is attributed to the apostle Bartholomew. It was never attributed, traditionally, to anyone OTHER than the apostle Bartholomew.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew) is not to be confused with the Questions of Bartholomew, although either text may be the missing Gospel of Bartholomew (or neither may be), a lost work from the New Testament apocrypha.
The text is known from three partial manuscripts, and additional fragments, all of which are in Coptic. The text contains visions by Bartholomew, and acts of Thomas, but is predominantly about The Passion, and the Eucharist. The text seems to have no semblance of gnostic interpretations, and instead appears to be a text aiming to fill in the supernatural details of the Passion, and to emphasize the value and meaning of church liturgy.
The text starts with a description of Jesus' own rather gory comprehension of his own fate, i.e. the crucifixion. It is followed by a tale in which someone attempts to stand in for Jesus (i.e. die in his place), but the priests are initially unable to kill him, even though they try stoning and putting him in an oven.
Subsequently, the text describes Jesus descending into hell, and, finding Judas there, preaching to him. Jesus rescues everyone from hell, except Judas, Cain, and Herod the Great. This is followed by a flashback described by a gardener to the night when angels, fiery chariots, and God, descended to earth, and resurrected Jesus.
Bartholomew is present at the scene, and is shown the highest level of heaven so that he can see the liturgy going on there to celebrate the resurrection. Bartholomew then has a flashback about a divine visitation at the Mount of Olives.
Meanwhile, Thomas is busy resurrecting Siophanes (possibly a transcription error and meant to read Theophanes), his son. On returning to life, Siophanes describes what the afterlife was like, while Thomas proceeds to baptize all of the amazed townsfolk, who number some 12,000.
Finally, in order to witness the ascension of Jesus, Thomas is brought to the others via a cloud. At this point Thomas is surprised to see Jesus resurrected (despite having just brought his own son back to life), and celebrates the eucharist with the other apostles. Then they disperse to evangelize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecti ... rtholomew)
So, did the apostle Bartholomew actual write this work? And if he did not, then who did? No one knows!
A more complete description of THE BOOK OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST BY BARTHOLOMEW THE APOSTLE can be found here:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm
What exactly is "the overwhelming external evidence for John’s authorship," by the way?
***
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
"Therefore one of the gospels that started to circulate in the early 2nd century was not more vigorously challenged as authentic. It became yet another contender that both helped and reflected the Hellenizing of Christianity. This one was claimed to be based on the eyewitness testimony of a disciple who was referred to as the “beloved disciple.� It was clearly written from the hand of someone who had known the “eye-witness.� As such, it was unique amongst the latter apocryphal gospels, all of which were invariably purporting to have been written firsthand by an apostle (like Thomas or Philip, etc.) This gospel, later called the Gospel of John, became a cornerstone of Christian canon, doctrine and illustration."
"However, aside from its use in Gnostic circles, it was largely obscure until the later part of the 2nd century, although one scrap of papyrus containing 2 verses is in the Rylands Collection and it is dated to around 125 AD. There is no question that early-on the name of John was associated with the gospel. Today, however, it can no longer be determined if this was a frank admission that an important Presbyter in Christendom also named John (the Presbyter of Ephesus) had written it, or if it was thought that John the Apostle wrote it. There is reasonable confusion. The book originated from Ephesus or close by at Heirapolis. The ancients knew that there existed a John who was the apostolic presbyter at Ephesus. He was frequently mentioned by Papias, the Bishop of nearby Hierapolis, whose 5 books Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord survived extant for centuries and were quoted by many churchmen. Papias had been this presbyter’s ardent disciple, and he was the source for much of what Papias passed on as authentic sayings from the early period."
"But the confusion arose as to just who this John was when Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, first asserted (in 180 AD) that Papias was the student of John the Apostle and that he mentions him as such in his Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. After this the notion started to gain momentum that the gospel originated with John the Apostle. This also added weight to the rumor that John the Apostle had written another contested book originating at Ephesus, called the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. Papias was known to heavily expound upon the illusions of The Apocalypse in volumes of his five volume work Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. Therefore since the gospel had originated at Ephesus, it seemed that John, Papias, the gospel and The Apocalypse were linked. Papias’ 5th book apparently confirmed this. In later centuries reference was made to it, where Papias said he had been John’s scribe on the gospel."
"Despite Irenaeus’ assertions that Papias and Ephesus were linked with John the Apostle, there were still objections to the gospel because of its Gnostic overtones. A few years after Irenaeus, the Roman Presbyter Gaius denounced it as having been written by a Gnostic heretic named Cerinthus. And, in fact, certain Gnostic elements are noteworthy in the gospel, such as a metaphysical rationalizing to explain why the Resurrection and Parousia had not happened as a physical event. In the Gospel of John, the resurrection is indeed given just such a spin. Christ supposedly said: “I am the Resurrection and the life,� making the concept of a one-time vast resurrection of the dead into something far more metaphysical or allegorical. That the gospel was written late in the 90s AD or early 2nd century is shown by the fact that the prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, now a past event, are noteworthy for their absence, and apocalypticism in general is expurgated. Christ is no longer a Jewish figure at all, but he is Greek, engaging and talkative, disputing, evasive, and mystical. There are no real concrete teachings, and indeed the Biblical prophecy that Christ would speak in parables has no real fulfillment in John because Christ does not really use parables in that gospel."
"The objections to the gospel must have remained significant, for the Presbyter Hippolytus was forced to argue for its inclusion into the books used at Rome at the beginning of the 3rd Century. The gospel grew in importance until the Council of Carthage (397 AD), at which even St. Augustine was present, and they accepted St. Athanasius’ Easter Letter compilation of books. The list of books in dispute would no longer contain the Gospel of John. Christianity had gone so far from its Jewish roots into the Greek branches that the gospel’s overt Hellenistic view of Jesus and its Gnostic metaphysics were not recognized as something impossible for Jews to have written or even understood in the 1st Century. Christianity was a Greco-Roman concept now, and the Gospel of John communicated on that level. It is not surprising that this became the most popular gospel, except amongst the Nazarenes, who still read a Hebrew version similar in many respects to Matthew, known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Ebionites, a sectary of Jewish Gnostic believers who did not regard Christ as divine, also read an expurgated version of this gospel it seems, removing implications of divinity."
"Even when such a pillar of education as Eusebius (260-339 AD) took on some of the claims of Christianity’s early period in his massive Ecclesiastical History he did not dispute that John the Apostle wrote the gospel and the 1st Epistle of John. Yet he had no problems exposing the presbyter John as the mentor to Papias, and that he was not the apostle. In his Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord, Papias distinctly mentioned both John the Apostle and John the Elder separately in terms that left no doubt that he had only heard the presbyter’s teachings, not the apostle’s. (See Canon of the New Testament and Irrelevant Revelation) Eusebius says of Papias’ comments: “Moreover, by these remarks he confirms the truth of the story told by those who have said that there were two men in Asia [Turkey] who had the same name, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even today is said to be John’s.� Although Eusebius deferred to the legend that John the Apostle was also at Ephesus, it was clear to him that the Elder wrote the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, and also the Apocalypse. But, ironically, the tradition remained intact from that point forward that there were two Johns at Ephesus: John the Apostle wrote the gospel and the 1st epistle; and John the Elder wrote the two other epistles, where he identifies himself as the Elder, plus the disputed Apocalypse."
"This way the church could maintain the gospel and 1st John, both of which were regarded very highly, while at the same time explain why the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John are clearly introduced from an “Elder;� and at the same time, moreover, try and mediate the strange influences of the Apocalypse. Eusebius: “It is important to notice this, for it is probably the second, unless one prefers the first, who saw the Revelation that circulates under the name of John.� Eusebius’ casual regard for the independent prudence of the believer to determine who wrote Revelation (The Apocalypse) shows the extent of the book’s non-canonicity at the time. Indeed, in his own compilation he listed all the gospels, 1st John and 1st Peter in the homologomena, the accepted and undisputed books; and the disputed books he placed in the antilogomena. However, within the antilogomena Eusebius had two subsections: disputed and spurious. He placed the Apocalypse in the lowest section: spurious. Eusebius was not being dynamic in this area. He was, safe to say, reflecting the general low regard for both the epistles and Apocalypse."
http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html
ca·nard [kuh-nahrd; French ka-nar]
noun, plural ca·nards [kuh-nahrdz; French ka-nar] S
1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
2. Cookery. a duck intended or used for food.
Perhaps I can muster more of an argument if you really wish. And remember, this is what YOU have been asking for. First of all, "We have the unanimous testimony" OF WHO, that the canonical Gospel of Matthew, the version found in all modern copies of the NT, was actually written by the apostle Matthew? Certainly it's true that the Catholic church has always declared it to be so. But the Catholic church did not come into existence until the 4th century. Prior to that we have the statements from Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Eusebius which all indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel. And that Gospel was written in the HEBREW LANGUAGE.Goose wrote: You STILL aren’t addressing my argument about Matthew especially when we consider there is evidence, from the translations of Josephus’ for example, that it wasn’t unprecedented at the time to be able to translate works from Hebrew to Greek without leaving signs of translation. You simply complain and counter with “no one actually knows� as though that itself refutes the arguments. Further you still haven’t addressed my final argument on Matthew which I gave to you not once but twice. Here I’ll give it you again. Maybe three times the charm?
Goose wrote:
And I addressed your point with the bottom line that we have unanimous testimony that Matthew authored a Gospel. Wwhen combined with the fact that not one single manuscript tradition assigns Matthew to anyone other than Matthew we have a very strong case for authorship, at least as strong as other works from ancient history. You didn’t address this argument with your complaints above.
Now, do you have any cogent counter arguments to make or is staring at your feet and mumbling “no one actually knows� all you can muster up?
Koine Greek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Testament Greek
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
De novo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In general usage, de novo is a Latin expression meaning "from the beginning," "afresh," "anew," "beginning again."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_novo
Next:
A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Matthew, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown.
"But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31."
"But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles—in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two—though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels—in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all—or our Greek Matthew is itself the original. "
"Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it."
"It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."'
http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm
So, how do we know that the Koine Greek Matthew which appears in all modern copies of the NT was in fact written by the apostle Matthew? "All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors." This is what is known as Christian tradition. In other words, it's true because Christians believe it and have declared it to be so. And what does the historical evidence have to say? Prior to the formation of the Catholic church in the 4th century, we have the statements from Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Eusebius which all indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel. And that Gospel was written in the HEBREW LANGUAGE. But what evidence do we have which would serve to establish that the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in perfect Koine Greek? NONE! We have no evidence to indicate and therefore nothing to establish the identity of the author of the Koine Greek gospel TRADITIONALLY attributed to Matthew. Like so much of Christian tradition, it is so because Christians have declared it to BE so! So who REALLY wrote the Gospel of Matthew contained in all modern Bibles? “NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS!�
Here is an interesting example of just exactly who wrote what derived from NT times, as paraphrased (for brevity) by Wikipedia. It's known as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it is attributed to the apostle Bartholomew. It was never attributed, traditionally, to anyone OTHER than the apostle Bartholomew.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew) is not to be confused with the Questions of Bartholomew, although either text may be the missing Gospel of Bartholomew (or neither may be), a lost work from the New Testament apocrypha.
The text is known from three partial manuscripts, and additional fragments, all of which are in Coptic. The text contains visions by Bartholomew, and acts of Thomas, but is predominantly about The Passion, and the Eucharist. The text seems to have no semblance of gnostic interpretations, and instead appears to be a text aiming to fill in the supernatural details of the Passion, and to emphasize the value and meaning of church liturgy.
The text starts with a description of Jesus' own rather gory comprehension of his own fate, i.e. the crucifixion. It is followed by a tale in which someone attempts to stand in for Jesus (i.e. die in his place), but the priests are initially unable to kill him, even though they try stoning and putting him in an oven.
Subsequently, the text describes Jesus descending into hell, and, finding Judas there, preaching to him. Jesus rescues everyone from hell, except Judas, Cain, and Herod the Great. This is followed by a flashback described by a gardener to the night when angels, fiery chariots, and God, descended to earth, and resurrected Jesus.
Bartholomew is present at the scene, and is shown the highest level of heaven so that he can see the liturgy going on there to celebrate the resurrection. Bartholomew then has a flashback about a divine visitation at the Mount of Olives.
Meanwhile, Thomas is busy resurrecting Siophanes (possibly a transcription error and meant to read Theophanes), his son. On returning to life, Siophanes describes what the afterlife was like, while Thomas proceeds to baptize all of the amazed townsfolk, who number some 12,000.
Finally, in order to witness the ascension of Jesus, Thomas is brought to the others via a cloud. At this point Thomas is surprised to see Jesus resurrected (despite having just brought his own son back to life), and celebrates the eucharist with the other apostles. Then they disperse to evangelize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecti ... rtholomew)
So, did the apostle Bartholomew actual write this work? And if he did not, then who did? No one knows!
A more complete description of THE BOOK OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST BY BARTHOLOMEW THE APOSTLE can be found here:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm
Yes, Eusebius was a 4th century Christian tactician for the fledgling Catholic church which had itself only just come into being in the 4th century. Eusebius and the Catholic church in general were very much involved with what would be eventually declared by the church to be canon. What the historical record actually provides us with is a record of the Christian church defining itself and constructing it's own identity, largely though it's own claims for itself.Goose wrote: I guess Wikipedia didn't have a counter argument for this. You may as well be saying, “I don't know what to argue here so I'll just stomp my feet!� The reason you have no counter argument is you intuitively understand 30 years is sufficient time to learn a language and learn it very well.
Further I provided you evidence that the terminology in 1 Peter 5:12 has been used elsewhere by Eusebius for a letter writer and not a courier. But you had not response to that argument either and just ignored it. What’s the matter, Wikipedia didn’t have something you could cut and paste on that either?
Your claim that pseudonymous works “were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time� is patently false. As an example, consider the words of Serapion, as recorded by Eusebius, regarding the Gospel of Peter.
�For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.� – Church History 6.12.3
The uniform evidence from the early church suggests they made a point of rejecting works that were considered pseudonymous (1 Peter wasn’t one of them by the way) thus giving us evidence that pseudonymity was not an acceptable practise in the early church.
Let’s not forget your dismissal of the overwhelming external evidence for John’s authorship. I guess Wikipedia doesn’t have anything you can cut and paste on that either, huh.
What exactly is "the overwhelming external evidence for John’s authorship," by the way?
***
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
"Therefore one of the gospels that started to circulate in the early 2nd century was not more vigorously challenged as authentic. It became yet another contender that both helped and reflected the Hellenizing of Christianity. This one was claimed to be based on the eyewitness testimony of a disciple who was referred to as the “beloved disciple.� It was clearly written from the hand of someone who had known the “eye-witness.� As such, it was unique amongst the latter apocryphal gospels, all of which were invariably purporting to have been written firsthand by an apostle (like Thomas or Philip, etc.) This gospel, later called the Gospel of John, became a cornerstone of Christian canon, doctrine and illustration."
"However, aside from its use in Gnostic circles, it was largely obscure until the later part of the 2nd century, although one scrap of papyrus containing 2 verses is in the Rylands Collection and it is dated to around 125 AD. There is no question that early-on the name of John was associated with the gospel. Today, however, it can no longer be determined if this was a frank admission that an important Presbyter in Christendom also named John (the Presbyter of Ephesus) had written it, or if it was thought that John the Apostle wrote it. There is reasonable confusion. The book originated from Ephesus or close by at Heirapolis. The ancients knew that there existed a John who was the apostolic presbyter at Ephesus. He was frequently mentioned by Papias, the Bishop of nearby Hierapolis, whose 5 books Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord survived extant for centuries and were quoted by many churchmen. Papias had been this presbyter’s ardent disciple, and he was the source for much of what Papias passed on as authentic sayings from the early period."
"But the confusion arose as to just who this John was when Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, first asserted (in 180 AD) that Papias was the student of John the Apostle and that he mentions him as such in his Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. After this the notion started to gain momentum that the gospel originated with John the Apostle. This also added weight to the rumor that John the Apostle had written another contested book originating at Ephesus, called the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. Papias was known to heavily expound upon the illusions of The Apocalypse in volumes of his five volume work Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. Therefore since the gospel had originated at Ephesus, it seemed that John, Papias, the gospel and The Apocalypse were linked. Papias’ 5th book apparently confirmed this. In later centuries reference was made to it, where Papias said he had been John’s scribe on the gospel."
"Despite Irenaeus’ assertions that Papias and Ephesus were linked with John the Apostle, there were still objections to the gospel because of its Gnostic overtones. A few years after Irenaeus, the Roman Presbyter Gaius denounced it as having been written by a Gnostic heretic named Cerinthus. And, in fact, certain Gnostic elements are noteworthy in the gospel, such as a metaphysical rationalizing to explain why the Resurrection and Parousia had not happened as a physical event. In the Gospel of John, the resurrection is indeed given just such a spin. Christ supposedly said: “I am the Resurrection and the life,� making the concept of a one-time vast resurrection of the dead into something far more metaphysical or allegorical. That the gospel was written late in the 90s AD or early 2nd century is shown by the fact that the prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, now a past event, are noteworthy for their absence, and apocalypticism in general is expurgated. Christ is no longer a Jewish figure at all, but he is Greek, engaging and talkative, disputing, evasive, and mystical. There are no real concrete teachings, and indeed the Biblical prophecy that Christ would speak in parables has no real fulfillment in John because Christ does not really use parables in that gospel."
"The objections to the gospel must have remained significant, for the Presbyter Hippolytus was forced to argue for its inclusion into the books used at Rome at the beginning of the 3rd Century. The gospel grew in importance until the Council of Carthage (397 AD), at which even St. Augustine was present, and they accepted St. Athanasius’ Easter Letter compilation of books. The list of books in dispute would no longer contain the Gospel of John. Christianity had gone so far from its Jewish roots into the Greek branches that the gospel’s overt Hellenistic view of Jesus and its Gnostic metaphysics were not recognized as something impossible for Jews to have written or even understood in the 1st Century. Christianity was a Greco-Roman concept now, and the Gospel of John communicated on that level. It is not surprising that this became the most popular gospel, except amongst the Nazarenes, who still read a Hebrew version similar in many respects to Matthew, known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Ebionites, a sectary of Jewish Gnostic believers who did not regard Christ as divine, also read an expurgated version of this gospel it seems, removing implications of divinity."
"Even when such a pillar of education as Eusebius (260-339 AD) took on some of the claims of Christianity’s early period in his massive Ecclesiastical History he did not dispute that John the Apostle wrote the gospel and the 1st Epistle of John. Yet he had no problems exposing the presbyter John as the mentor to Papias, and that he was not the apostle. In his Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord, Papias distinctly mentioned both John the Apostle and John the Elder separately in terms that left no doubt that he had only heard the presbyter’s teachings, not the apostle’s. (See Canon of the New Testament and Irrelevant Revelation) Eusebius says of Papias’ comments: “Moreover, by these remarks he confirms the truth of the story told by those who have said that there were two men in Asia [Turkey] who had the same name, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even today is said to be John’s.� Although Eusebius deferred to the legend that John the Apostle was also at Ephesus, it was clear to him that the Elder wrote the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, and also the Apocalypse. But, ironically, the tradition remained intact from that point forward that there were two Johns at Ephesus: John the Apostle wrote the gospel and the 1st epistle; and John the Elder wrote the two other epistles, where he identifies himself as the Elder, plus the disputed Apocalypse."
"This way the church could maintain the gospel and 1st John, both of which were regarded very highly, while at the same time explain why the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John are clearly introduced from an “Elder;� and at the same time, moreover, try and mediate the strange influences of the Apocalypse. Eusebius: “It is important to notice this, for it is probably the second, unless one prefers the first, who saw the Revelation that circulates under the name of John.� Eusebius’ casual regard for the independent prudence of the believer to determine who wrote Revelation (The Apocalypse) shows the extent of the book’s non-canonicity at the time. Indeed, in his own compilation he listed all the gospels, 1st John and 1st Peter in the homologomena, the accepted and undisputed books; and the disputed books he placed in the antilogomena. However, within the antilogomena Eusebius had two subsections: disputed and spurious. He placed the Apocalypse in the lowest section: spurious. Eusebius was not being dynamic in this area. He was, safe to say, reflecting the general low regard for both the epistles and Apocalypse."
http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html
I don't think that it is to much of a stretch to point out that events which never occurred routinely fail to get reported on at the time. Clearly you consider such an objection to be meaningless.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The lack of comment on events when they were supposed to have occurred is perfectly in keeping with the lack of any such events actually occurring, you see. That is perfectly clear and valid logic. It certainly does not serve to justify or substantiate the statement that "the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong."
Goose wrote:
This is a classic example of your faulty reasoning that you repeatedly peddle over and over. Here your “valid logic,� if we apply it to other notable events from ancient history, obliterates the assassination of Caesar, for example, because there is next to no evidence from the time it occurred. Despite the fact we might expect there to be abundant evidence for the assassination considering who was murdered and the number of possible witnesses. How many more times must I show your reasoning to be faulty? Do you simply not care that your reasoning is faulty?
You made a reference to the word "canard." What I then pointed out to you is that a "canard" actually refers to something which is silly or baseless. A canard is also a duck, "a kind of a small goose" (my exact words). Being members of the same family, the Anatidae, they are very closely related.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
So cut and run from the discussion if you choose, but do not allow your self deception to misunderstand what is obvious to everyone else; that you have been getting the worst of it and well know it!
Goose wrote:
This assessment coming from the guy who tried to argue a duck is a goose.
ca·nard [kuh-nahrd; French ka-nar]
noun, plural ca·nards [kuh-nahrdz; French ka-nar] S
1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
2. Cookery. a duck intended or used for food.
I believe I just did make such a counter argument. Still not comprehensive enough for you? The bottom line here is that all that you can really establish is that there were Christians by the second half of the first century, and that these Christians were spreading the story of a corpse that came back to life and flew away. Much as it can be established that there were believing Muslims in the 7th century spreading the story of Muhammad riding a flying steed up to heaven for a visit with God, and believing Mormons in the 19th century spreading the story that Joseph Smith had discovered, through the aid of an angel named Moroni, some mysterious golden tablets covered in unreadable hieroglyphics which Joseph Smith was able to read by placing the tablets into a top hat and then pushing his face into the hat, thereby translating them through an act of God. Now, what does any of this REALLY have to do with actual "historical evidence," not to mention actual reality? And at what point should a modern person with even a modicum of reason and and ounce of innate skepticism begin to simply roll their eyes and sigh at the foolish gullibility of others?Goose wrote: Now, do you have any cogent counter arguments to make or is staring at your feet and mumbling “no one actually knows� all we can expect?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #1693
What is this thing called "objective morality"? Morality, as a social phenomenon in primates and other animals on planet earth, is fully understood as an advanced social function of evolution. Groups, tribes, packs, that collaborate and work as a team, often putting the interest of the group ahead of their short term personal advantage are more likely to survive than groups where a "every man for himself" anarchic mentality prevails. Moral laws are simply a product of this survival-of-the-fittest mechanism in social animals. Tribes that kill each other end up going extinct. Tribes that try to outlaw murder survive.WinePusher wrote:Well, you actually need to understand it in order to destroy it and you clearly don't understand it. The moral argument does not attempt to prove any specific miracle, the argument attempts to prove the existence of a transcendent moral law giver (God) by using the existence of objective (absolute) morality as evidence.no evidence no belief wrote:I will not talk about the moral argument as a vague concept. If you want to discuss it, present it here, either in your own words, or as a link to somebody else's wording that you concur with, and then I'll destroy it for you.
An argument for the existence of God which predicates God's existence on the existence of something that doesn't exist, is not a very good argument. So before you do anything, you have to clearly define objective morality, and demonstrate that it exist.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Post #1694
There are Christians presenting "historical" evidence here? Where?WinePusher wrote:The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?
Don't confuse scripture with history. History has sufficient evidence, scripture doesn't.
Mortality in humans is a result of both nature and nurture. Humans, as social animals, evolved instinctual "rules" to cooperate with others, and preserve oneself and the species. All social animals have, from ants to lions to schooling fish. But unlike other animals, humans have also evolved the expanded capacity to form new morals, which are very much subjective and inconsistent across cultures.
If there was a god providing us morality, then we'd expect more consistency.
There's also no evidence the universe or any deity cares what happens. An asteroid could kill most life on Earth tomorrow, and nothing would stop it.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1695
So you agree the silliness in Numbers 22:WinePusher wrote:olavisjo wrote:The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?LOL based on all this nonsense it seems that you are NOT familiar with the moral argument. Your ridiculous caricature is rubbish.no evidence no belief wrote:No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.
It goes something like this:
1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real
The moral argument has been subject to much scrutiny and a lot of philosophical scholarship and your response does not address any of the relevant issues regarding the argument. All you have done so far is regurgitate ad nauseum 'I want proof for talking donkeys and farting fairies.' Guess what, this subforum is for debating Christianity and Christianity does not claim that donkeys talk and fairies fart. You should try to gain a genuine understanding of what Christianity is and maybe it would clear up a lot of this confusion about talking donkeys and farting fairies.
The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.
And the talking serpent in Genesis are pure mythology and have nothing to do with the basic claims that are central to Christianity?
-
WinePusher
Post #1696
WinePusher wrote:Well, you actually need to understand it in order to destroy it and you clearly don't understand it. The moral argument does not attempt to prove any specific miracle, the argument attempts to prove the existence of a transcendent moral law giver (God) by using the existence of objective (absolute) morality as evidence.
A moral declaration that is true regardless of what anybody thinks.no evidence no belief wrote:What is this thing called "objective morality"?
Yet, there are hundreds of examples where individuals behave altruistically even though they have nothing to gain from it. There is no reciprocal altruism and there is no self interest involved, yet we still see people behaving selflessly.no evidence no belief wrote:Morality, as a social phenomenon in primates and other animals on planet earth, is fully understood as an advanced social function of evolution. Groups, tribes, packs, that collaborate and work as a team, often putting the interest of the group ahead of their short term personal advantage are more likely to survive than groups where a "every man for himself" anarchic mentality prevails. Moral laws are simply a product of this survival-of-the-fittest mechanism in social animals. Tribes that kill each other end up going extinct. Tribes that try to outlaw murder survive.
It is pretty self evident that objective moral standards exist. Two prominent atheists who specialize in moral philosophy, Sam Harris and Shelly Kagan, affirm the existence of objective morality and so does a large part of the philosophical community. The best piece of evidence would be historical texts we have gathered from vastly different cultures. The golden rule, for example, is a universally accepted principle that is taught and adhered to by many people from many different cultures. This shows that objective moral truths exist regardless of a person's race, beliefs or culture.no evidence no belief wrote:An argument for the existence of God which predicates God's existence on the existence of something that doesn't exist, is not a very good argument. So before you do anything, you have to clearly define objective morality, and demonstrate that it exist.
-
WinePusher
Post #1697
Yup, pretty much. I don't believe that the donkey talked, or that there was an actual serpent in an actual garden of Eden with only two actual people. I do believe that miracles have and do occur, but many of the stories in the Old Testament don't make sense when taken literally. Much of the content within the Old Testament seems to be scientifically invalid, and I try to go where the evidence leads.Danmark wrote:So you agree the silliness in Numbers 22:WinePusher wrote:olavisjo wrote:The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?LOL based on all this nonsense it seems that you are NOT familiar with the moral argument. Your ridiculous caricature is rubbish.no evidence no belief wrote:No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.
It goes something like this:
1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real
The moral argument has been subject to much scrutiny and a lot of philosophical scholarship and your response does not address any of the relevant issues regarding the argument. All you have done so far is regurgitate ad nauseum 'I want proof for talking donkeys and farting fairies.' Guess what, this subforum is for debating Christianity and Christianity does not claim that donkeys talk and fairies fart. You should try to gain a genuine understanding of what Christianity is and maybe it would clear up a lot of this confusion about talking donkeys and farting fairies.
The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.
And the talking serpent in Genesis are pure mythology and have nothing to do with the basic claims that are central to Christianity?
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1698
This is by far the more sensible and accurate view from the point of view of the analysis of literature, not to mention common sense. And a much more defensible position.WinePusher wrote:Yup, pretty much. I don't believe that the donkey talked, or that there was an actual serpent in an actual garden of Eden with only two actual people. I do believe that miracles have and do occur, but many of the stories in the Old Testament don't make sense when taken literally. Much of the content within the Old Testament seems to be scientifically invalid, and I try to go where the evidence leads.Danmark wrote: So you agree the silliness in Numbers 22:
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.
And the talking serpent in Genesis are pure mythology and have nothing to do with the basic claims that are central to Christianity?
Yet this approach carries its own problems, in that it undermines the authority of scripture at least in the sense that the reader must exercise considerable judgment as to what is and what is not the word of God.
I also agree that one should not automatically discount a passage in the Bible simply because it appeals to the suspension of known principles of physics or other physical sciences.
And I agree, the resurrection is the focus here, not balaam's ass or talking, legged serpents. The fact that the resurrection calls for belief that the usual rules of nature were suspended is not the end of the matter, for if it were we could never consider new or as yet undiscovered phenomena.
Yet it should require extraordinary caution in the examination of evidence of such an event. And this gets us back to the basics regarding what testimony should be considered and what weight it should be given.
I see several key problems in evaluating the testimony of the gospels re: the resurrection. Each of them has had and deserves to have several books written about them.
1st, there is the issue of conflicts between the accounts.
2d, the lack of contemporaneous accounts. 'Q' is lost, if it ever existed. Mark is the considered the earliest that we have, but Mark is recorded at least 20 years after the events and has the least detail.
3d, is the issue of authorship, which leads to
4th, are these accounts first hand, eye witness accounts?
The combination of these issues combined with the claim of a supernatural event should give rise to skepticism on the part of any independent trier of fact.
Post #1699
.
In this thread you bring up the idea that there is a 6000 year lack of evidence for God, my hypothesis is that there is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of ability to understand the evidence. And you have done nothing to give me any reason to doubt my hypothesis. In fact this last post leaves me no doubt that my hypothesis is true.
This thread has run it's course and has very little quality debate left in it, this is why I will just declare victory and go away, as the US did in Iraq. I suggest others do the same.
Again thank you for your time, and I will see you in other threads if you are willing.
Thank you for your response.no evidence no belief wrote: No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.
It goes something like this:
1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real
In this thread you bring up the idea that there is a 6000 year lack of evidence for God, my hypothesis is that there is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of ability to understand the evidence. And you have done nothing to give me any reason to doubt my hypothesis. In fact this last post leaves me no doubt that my hypothesis is true.
This thread has run it's course and has very little quality debate left in it, this is why I will just declare victory and go away, as the US did in Iraq. I suggest others do the same.
Again thank you for your time, and I will see you in other threads if you are willing.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #1700
Well, if the evidence is not understood, it could be that it actually was evidence, or it could be that it actually wasn't evidence. We don't know. Because we didn't understand it.olavisjo wrote: .Thank you for your response.no evidence no belief wrote: No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.
It goes something like this:
1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real
In this thread you bring up the idea that there is a 6000 year lack of evidence for God, my hypothesis is that there is not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of ability to understand the evidence.
In either case, until you present some evidence that is understandable, you cannot claim that you have presented evidence.
That's like some guy who got laughed off the stage at American Idol saying that "he didn't win because nobody understands my style".
