Why are all the scholars changing their mind on

[alwayson]

A lot of mainstream scholars are changing their minds on the existence of Jesus.



Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD, Kurt Noll, associate professor of religion at Brandon University, and Thomas Thompson, renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen believe that you cannot say whether Jesus existed or not.

Thomas Brodie, director emeritus of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland, and Robert Price, who has two Ph.D.s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies, and Richard Carrier, Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, are certain Jesus never existed.

[The Me's]

Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes at major universities have their historical origins in the "Church Industry" of centuries past. The purpose of these is to repeat "Church Industry" dogma, which has not substantially altered over the centuries during which the - historically - depraved "Church Industry" has operated.

This is a complete fabrication.

Schools have existed more than 5000 years, and for almost that entire time religious organizations have sponsored their own for the purposes of literacy, copying religious texts and preserving historical documents.

I understand you need something to prop up your prejudices, but have some self respect and come up with something believable.

[dianaiad]

Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes at major universities have their historical origins in the "Church Industry" of centuries past. The purpose of these is to repeat "Church Industry" dogma, which has not substantially altered over the centuries during which the - historically - depraved "Church Industry" has operated.

.....

I understand you need something to prop up your prejudices, but have some self respect and come up with something believable.

Moderator Warning


The above crosses the line of civility. Do not make personal comments about other posters.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

Schools have existed more than 5000 years,

Can you document that schools existed in 3000 BCE?

and for almost that entire time religious organizations have sponsored their own for the purposes of literacy, copying religious texts and preserving historical documents.

How is that different from producing religious propaganda to serve their own purposes?

[The Me's]

Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes at major universities have their historical origins in the "Church Industry" of centuries past. The purpose of these is to repeat "Church Industry" dogma, which has not substantially altered over the centuries during which the - historically - depraved "Church Industry" has operated.

.....

I understand you need something to prop up your prejudices, but have some self respect and come up with something believable.

Moderator Warning


The above crosses the line of civility. Do not make personal comments about other posters.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

This user is trying to make a case that all Christian writings are suspect on the grounds that a few have been found to be forgeries. The absurdity of this argument is obvious. Have the courage to call it what it is.

When I see a prejudice, I intend to identify it.

Prejudice is a societal poison, and it undermines debate. If your forum allows it (while disallowing response), you're an accomplice.

[Ooberman]

This user is trying to make a case that all Christian writings are suspect on the grounds that a few have been found to be forgeries.

This is reasonable.

The absurdity of this argument is obvious.

There are no knock-down arguments in this debate. It's why we still debate it millenia after Aristotle.

Look, if the Bible is true, it hardly needs websites to defend it's honor. Let's stick to debating.

The point I'd debate is:

1. If the provenance of something is unknown, during a time in which many frauds were created, there is a good chance any text could be fraudulent.

2. Until we know a reliable method to determine authenticity in texts, we can't consider one text more or less likely authentic than another.

3. We do not have such tests, and so, we can't consider the Bible any more or less authentic than other religious texts of the time and place.

This is not saying the Bible is, definitively, a fraud, it simply proves we can't know.

If frauds were being produced, frauds were being produced.



How does one prove the Bible isn't a fraud?

[otseng]

This user is trying to make a case that all Christian writings are suspect on the grounds that a few have been found to be forgeries. The absurdity of this argument is obvious. Have the courage to call it what it is.

When I see a prejudice, I intend to identify it.

Prejudice is a societal poison, and it undermines debate. If your forum allows it (while disallowing response), you're an accomplice.

Moderator Warning


Publicly responding to moderator interventions is against the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Leucius Charinus]

The point I'd debate is:

1. If the provenance of something is unknown, during a time in which many frauds were created, there is a good chance any text could be fraudulent.

Totally.

2. Until we know a reliable method to determine authenticity in texts, we can't consider one text more or less likely authentic than another.

Authenticity is often related to chronological dating. For example, supposing the Codex Alexandrinus on display at the British Library was not really created in the 5th century as it is claimed to be, but rather was manufactured by scribes in the middle ages say 500-700 years later.

C14 dating would reveal the age of the material used.

3. We do not have such tests, and so, we can't consider the Bible any more or less authentic than other religious texts of the time and place.

This is not saying the Bible is, definitively, a fraud, it simply proves we can't know.

If frauds were being produced, frauds were being produced.



How does one prove the Bible isn't a fraud?

C14 the Codex Alexandrinus, a step which the BL is not about to take.







.

[Korah]

No one ever replied to this Post #60 of mine back in Feb. 2014, so at least we can conclude that the position I critiqued was incorrect. Perhaps in the intervening eight months someone has come along who is willing to deal with whether my refutation was also incorrect--we should not allow my Thesis to just go unchallenged.
At least we're dealing with facts--not that no eyewitness wrote the gospels nor that eyewitnesses did--but that the gospels exist and somebody wrote them.

It is beyond laughable to pretend that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, being that these spurious 'eyewitnesses' apparently thought that this Jesus was so unimportant that they never bothered to write a single word about him until DECADES after his alleged death. If you yourself were a witness to Lazarus being brought back from the dead - just how long would you wait to write EVERYTHING you could about this miracle. And yet these 'believers' couldn't spare the time from their busy lives to put pen to paper for more than 50 years?? Again, laughable.

You can pretend as well that the Bible is evidence of Jesus, just as I can pretend that the Lord of the Rings is evidence of Frodo Baggins. We're still both pretending.....

You take for granted that NOTHING was written about Jesus until DECADES after his death. That's merely a COMPROMISE. Even the non-believer Peter Kirby in his website EarlyChristianWritings.com gives 30-60 as the date for the Passion Narrative, which allows for the possibility that the last few chapters of each of the four gospels was basically written right then. In my own thesis that there are seven written eyewitness records of Jesus. I propose that the teen-aged John Mark wrote this underlying source as his personal diary of the week he knew Jesus before Jesus died. I argue that the Discourses in the Gospel of John were written even earlier as Nicodemus's job to gather evidence against Jesus. That Nicodemus's viewpoint changes radically during the course of three years is evidence that this was originally written as on-the-scene notes.

I do not contend that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel bearing that name, but that he wrote notes during Jesus's lifetime is quite reasonable, resulting in what was soon called the Logia (indicating not just sayings, as Schliermacher mistakenly thought, but what we would call a gospel), perhaps modern scholarship's Q or more likely the Twelve-Source. Perhaps this was so early that it was only in Aramaic, say six to ten chapters, but the later portions originating in Greek could have been his own additions. As "Q" or whatever it was, it was itself known and used in the Gospel of Mark as the better scholars now acknowledge. Thus Mark 2:14-15 should be regarded as his own personal testimony that was later copied into Matthew 9:9.

Acts 12:12 records that Peter went to John Mark's house (apparently in 44 A.D when Herod Agrippa I died, Acts 12:21-23). If this was not when Peter and John Mark completed the Gospel of Mark (and even non-believer scholars James Crossley and Maurice Casey date Mark very early, based on Mark 13 being a response to the Caligula Decree of 41 A. D.), it would have been when much of the first 13 chapters of Mark (preceding the already written Passion Narrative) would have been written.

All the gospels were completed by 70 A. D., as demonstrated by the liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson. That they include seven written eyewitness records I have shown in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses at Christian Forums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/
In addition Peter Kirby was kind enough to copy the same over to his website as well, where I go by the name "Adam" (and am in real life Dale Adams)
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &t=14#p495
in my Ur-Marcan Priority? thread.