Please Enlighten me on Early Church History

[Dark_Grey]

Best way to approach this: imagine if this was a case brought before the Supreme court. Is the evidence available enough to stand up under a court of law? After you've made your case, do you think you will have convinced the jury that Jesus was just like he is depicted in the Bible?

Edited for spelling

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dark_Grey

[Davros of Skaro]

Best way to approach this: imagine if this was a case brought before the Supreme court. Is the evidence available enough to stand up under a court of law? After you've made your case, do you think you will have convinced the jury that Jesus was just like he is depicted in the Bible?

Edited for spelling

The way I see it is that people who see "Leviticus 25:39-55", "Numbers 15:32-36" as pure vomit, and that Blood sacrifice is just Magical nonsense have a healthy Brain.

People who do mental gymnastic Apologetics, and believe in such obvious trash are just ill minded inwhich just enable others to wallow in the mud of ancient history.

The best thing to do is to get educated, and help stop the spread of infection.

In my humble opinion of course.

Leviticus 25:39-55

The Law Concerning Slavery

39 “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him

serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall

serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his

children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers.

42 For they are my servants,[a] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be

sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. 44 As for

your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among

the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn

with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be

your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession

forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall

not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Redeeming a Poor Man

47 “If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes

poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the

stranger's clan, 48 then after he is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brothers may redeem

him, 49 or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may

redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself. 50 He shall calculate with his buyer

from the year when he sold himself to him until the year of jubilee, and the price of his

sale shall vary with the number of years. The time he was with his owner shall be rated as

the time of a hired worker. 51 If there are still many years left, he shall pay

proportionately for his redemption some of his sale price. 52 If there remain but a few

years until the year of jubilee, he shall calculate and pay for his redemption in proportion

to his years of service. 53 He shall treat him as a worker hired year by year. He shall not

rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. 54 And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he

and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. 55 For it is to me that

the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of

Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Numbers 15:32-36

The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the

Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the

whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be

done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must

stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to

death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

[Dark_Grey]

Religion doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. There was a time, in the "olde world" when religion made sense...you could use to explain the origins of people and the stars, you could use it to construct rules and laws for society, etc

It's 2014, and the average man has access to more information through his mobile phone than the collective thoughts of a thousand ancient cities. This is a world of ones and zeros, science and technology. Religion has been made irrelevant by access to information, to the point where it's now laughable to believe in an invisible sky man. If every news article and every idea that graces this forum is expected to pass a vigorous test of logic and supporting evidence, photographic proof or peer-reviewed studies...

...where does that leave an old collection of stories largely passed along by word-of-mouth? The reign of religion is over. It's time to evolve.

Edit to add-- I am very passionate about this topic as I was once fiercely Christian. In the last few years, I have had a crisis of faith. A battle between head and heart. I have very strong, deep-seeded convictions instilled during my childhood that nag me constantly but my head is full of facts and figures that I know are the ultimate truth. They are tangible, they are supported, my former beliefs unfortunately just.....aren't.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dark_Grey

[Davros of Skaro]

Religion doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. There was a time, in the "olde world" when religion made sense...you could use to explain the origins of people and the stars, you could use it to construct rules and laws for society, etc

It's 2014, and the average man has access to more information through his mobile phone than the collective thoughts of a thousand ancient cities. This is a world of ones and zeros, science and technology. Religion has been made irrelevant by access to information, to the point where it's now laughable to believe in an invisible sky man. If every news article and every idea that graces this forum is expected to pass a vigorous test of logic and supporting evidence, photographic proof or peer-reviewed studies...

...where does that leave an old collection of stories largely passed along by word-of-mouth? The reign of religion is over. It's time to evolve.

Edit to add-- I am very passionate about this topic as I was once fiercely Christian. In the last few years, I have had a crisis of faith. A battle between head and heart. I have very strong, deep-seeded convictions instilled during my childhood that nag me constantly but my head is full of facts and figures that I know are the ultimate truth. They are tangible, they are supported, my former beliefs unfortunately just.....aren't.

You should do a thread "my deconversion story", and take your time before submitting.

I do not have a deconversion story, because I read the NT (some OT) as a child, and did not believe it.

Note: That's if you deconverted?

On second thought I will post a thread.

Edited January 21, 2014 by davros of skaro

[+Link of Hyrule]

Cherry picking is cherry picking; it tends to happen when you depend on authority rather than evidence. Now instead of realizing what you are doing you accuse me of something, I'm not quite sure what but it was unpleasant.

I have always run into this "the scholars agree that Jesus probably existed." l am not sure what they mean by "Jesus" and there is always that "probably" in there, and one has to ask "what scholars?" I tend to refrain from quoting scholars and try to go back to the original evidence, as one can always find someone to say what is desired, and it proves nothing.

Whether "Jesus" actually existed is kinda beside the point. He was not God, and did none of the things we are told or his presence would have been a sensation and we would have all sorts of independent, non-mythical sources to rely on. As a matter of historical evidence, I think he is pure myth, but of course it's like Robin Hood, and one can never be certain. Nor can one be certain about the Loch Ness Monster.

So the alternative to relying on the considered opinion of those who have literally spent years devoted to a subject area, enough so as to acquire university honours and PhD's, is to rely on yourself, who has not even taken a basic entrance-level university course on the topic.

I'm sure that makes sense to some, but I'll certainly never understand it.

And yes, I am accusing you of something. It seems that you've got a nice little niche where no matter what scholar I quote, the source is invalid. I wish I had it that easy sometimes

Edited January 21, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

OK. There is at least one sceptic. If, as you stated, Jesus is a fact, then what's wrong with the sceptic in your view? She denies a fact, you say, and so you've eliminated the obvious and innocent explanation: that she holds a different opinion than you do about a matter of opinion, an unceertainty.

Absolutely nothing. Provided they are open enough to admit that they represent a minority, and be comfortable with that. And for all I know those scholars are like that. Buy what I see on forums like this are laymen adopting the minority view and looking down their nose at those who accept the scholarly majority, as if we've been duped by the soulless minions of orthodoxy.

What about me? I'm 60-40. That means if we could bet on it, I'd willingly pay $1 for a ticket that paid me $3 if there was no Jesus. (If we could bet on it, and Jesus is a fact, then you'd be happy to take my dollar.) What's wrong with me, in your view? I would bet against a fact, if I could, so there must be something that needs fixing.

If there was a way to take you up on the bet and you were willing to wager $1 on Jesus' non-existence, I'd gladly take the wager. As is, I think you perhaps have the odds a but skewed, maybe closer to 90-10 (conservative estimate), so use my betting agency to make the wager, you're return on the odds will be closer to $10 then $4

Doubtless well observed, but I didn't discredit any scholarly discussant on religious grounds. Not my style, either.

Indeed, and I suppose my comment wasn't really directed at you, it just happened to be a convenient segue.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Religion doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. There was a time, in the "olde world" when religion made sense...you could use to explain the origins of people and the stars, you could use it to construct rules and laws for society, etc

It's 2014, and the average man has access to more information through his mobile phone than the collective thoughts of a thousand ancient cities. This is a world of ones and zeros, science and technology. Religion has been made irrelevant by access to information, to the point where it's now laughable to believe in an invisible sky man. If every news article and every idea that graces this forum is expected to pass a vigorous test of logic and supporting evidence, photographic proof or peer-reviewed studies...

...where does that leave an old collection of stories largely passed along by word-of-mouth? The reign of religion is over. It's time to evolve.

Edit to add-- I am very passionate about this topic as I was once fiercely Christian. In the last few years, I have had a crisis of faith. A battle between head and heart. I have very strong, deep-seeded convictions instilled during my childhood that nag me constantly but my head is full of facts and figures that I know are the ultimate truth. They are tangible, they are supported, my former beliefs unfortunately just.....aren't.

Religion may be over for you, but I didn't grow up in a Christian home and yet as a 19-year old studying at university I converted to Christ. Perhaps you've decided God is not for you, and I'm cool with that, but not by any means would it be correct to say that religion is worthless.

[Doug1029]

Jesus had that sown up pretty tight, considering several independent sources about Jesus - Q, SQ, Mark, Matthew, Luke, M, L, Paul, James.

And this is just the biblical sources that are independent of each other, and doesn't include texts such as Hebrews, whose authorship is completely anonymous, but likely a disciple of someone like Paul.

Q is a HYPOTHETICAL document. There is no evidence that it ever existed. No recovered fragment, no quote by another writer, nothing!

You can recreate the Book of Mark by quoting the Book of Matthew. By that reasoning, Matthew must have existed first. But, if you want to have the Book of Mark being written first, then you have to hypothesize the existence of another document – the Q Document – so that Mark has a source for his information. That’s what the Q Document is – a hypothetical source for Mark. Such a document might actually have been a whole bunch of different documents, or it might have been one that no longer exists, or a combination.

Whichever side of the Q Document you come down on, either Matthew is a source for Mark, or Mark is a source for Matthew – and there goes your independence. Matthew/Mark must be accepted as a single source; they are not independent.

I am not familiar with the SQ, M and L Documents. Could you please enlighten us with some further information about who discovered them and what they say?

There were probably some “pre-Markan” writings that may have contributed fragments to the modern gospel. Almost-certainly one of these was the account by Philo of Alexandria about the hazing of a mentally-deficient man named Carabbas. His tormentors placed a crown of thorns on his head, dressed him in a purple robe and hung a sign around his neck that read “King of the Jews.” The occasion of this man’s misfortune was Herod Agrippa’s visit to Alexandria in 41 AD while returning from his coronation as “King of the Jews” in Rome.

Philo of Alexandria’s brother was Herod’s chief tax collector, the man who donated the gold that formed the lettering over the doors of the Temple (and was taken by the Romans to pay for building the Coliseum). Philo knew the rulers of Roman-occupied Judea personally (He was related to several of them.). As such, he would have been perfectly situated to know of events in Jerusalem during Jesus’ life, yet Philo never mentioned anything about him; Jesus didn’t even merit a footnote.

At any rate, Papias (70 to 155 AD) may have been referring to the pre-Markan writings when he said that a man named Mark made a collection of Jesus’ sayings. Papias also lamented that there was no biographical account of Jesus’ life. Yet our modern gospels are biographical accounts of Jesus’ life – Papias’ Mark was not the writer of the modern gospels. Papias says that he had “the words of John ringing in my ears,” probably meaning John the Apostle. He also tells a story he attributes to Jesus via “the daughters of Philip.” If Papias was real, a detail that is disputed among historians, these are the only historical mentions of ANY of the Apostles.

Those same “experts” you like to quote tell us that Luke was derived in part from Matthew/Mark and in part from another, unknown, document. There goes your independence again. An event told in Matthew does not become independent when Luke copies it. Luke/Acts are two parts of one book. Luke is the first one; Acts is the sequel. They mention “most excellent Felix (Lucius Munacius Felix was governor of Egypt from 149 to 154 AD; though, there is a papyrus stating he was appointed on September 13, 151 AD),” and “most excellent Theophilus (Patriarch of Antioch from about 169 to about 180 AD).” These two names suggest a date between 160 and 180 for the writing of Luke/Acts, probably sometime in the 170s (This was during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius – maybe there’s a mention of that somewhere in Luke/Acts? Won’t mean much if there isn’t, but what if there is? Thanks for the idea, PA!).

There is another idea floating around among historians: that Luke was derived in part from the writings of Marcion the Heretic (The other part being Matthew/Mark). That again destroys independence. If Luke is copying an idea from Matthew who is copying it from Mark, that’s only one idea, not three.

Then there’s “Paul.” The supposed “Paul” lived in Jerusalem at the same time that Jesus supposedly did. Yet there is no first-hand information about Jesus in any of Paul’s writings. He never said, “I saw him hanging on the cross,” or “I had breakfast with him last Tuesday.” Paul, the one guy who COULD have provided independent confirmation of Jesus’ existence, says he dreamed it all up – literally – Paul says it came to him in a vision. Lots of people who wanted to claim Apostleship (those with a personal message from Jesus) resorted to “visions,” especially when it was obvious that they were too young to have met Jesus. Paul doesn’t provide an independent observation of Jesus.

“Pol” is short for “Apollonius” or “Apollo.” There are several NT references to these names and it appears that Apollonius of Tyana and Paul of Tarsus were probably one and the same. In fact, Philostratus and the Bible agree that Apollonius of Tyana and Paul of Tarsus were in Ephesus and Rome at exactly the same times. Other similarities are amazing: Both were born slightly before Jesus; both were raised in Tarsus (And at least knew each other, if they weren’t exactly the same person); both were religiously precocious; both spoke variants of Aramaic Hebrew; both had a disciple named Damis/Demas from Asia Minor; both had an associate named Titus; both were associated with people named Demetrius and Stephanus; both were influenced by the writings of Plato; both renounced wealth; both followed abstinence and asceticism; both were unmarried and childless; both went to Jerusalem and Antioch; both traveled to the East; both wrote epistles instructing followers in religiosity; both fought wild beasts at Ephesus; both performed miracles, cast out demons and healed the sick; both were religious reformers; both spoke authoritatively to Temple priests; both founded religious communities at Corinth; both were mistaken for gods; both had their lives threatened; both were condemned by a Roman Emperor and imprisoned at Rome; both miraculously escaped prison and both were shipwrecked. There is historical documentation of Apollonius of Tyana, but none of Paul of Tarsus. UNLESS: Paul of Tarsus was Apollonius of Tyana. Sorry, PA. Paul doesn’t offer independent observations of Jesus.

I have not read through the Books of James. I’ll have to take your word, there. But if your ideas hold up there; that’ll be the only place, so far.

The best sources of independent observations are a person’s enemies, people who knew him and wished him dead. What they and his supporters agree is true, is probably true. But the Jesus stories have no counter-stories. Nobody witnessed his miracles and said “Ya, but…” ALL the stories are told by people many years removed from the events. None are told by anybody who even claimed to be an eye-witness. And all the Jesus stories were re-written many times by people who thought some previous detail was wrong – the last redactions were done about the time of St. Augustine by people who would have been contemporaries of King Arthur!

From what you have posted above, I don’t think you know what independence is. You have never offered any evidence against anything I have proposed, in spite of several attempts, so I doubt you know what evidence is, either. And you have never even attempted to offer a line of reasoning supporting your ideas of history. This has been a rather one-sided discussion.

It doesn’t take a string of alphabet soup after your name to do good research; but it does take knowledge of research methods and standards. A doctorate doesn’t guarantee that. Some “expert’s” opinion is no better than yours or mine if they can’t present their evidence and reasoning. There is no room for speculation. Always try to have an answer to: how do you know this to be true?

Doug

[eight bits]

PA

It would appear that you and I could now come to an agreement that the question of whether or not Jesus existed is an open question, not a settled fact, and that certainty about the correct answer cannot be had by natural means. That was my main goal in raising an objection to your assertion that Jesus' existence was a fact, and to Ehrman's expression of certainty.

Provided they are open enough to admit that they represent a minority,...

That's a separate question. I don't see anything "to admit" about it, however. Whether Jesus existed or not isn't something to be resolved by putting it to a vote.

Presumably our sceptic would be aware that between Christians and Muslims, about half of the human race professes a dispositive answer to the question, regardless of the state of the evidence. So, it is pretty much hopeless that our sceptic could be in a majority. There aren't that many uncommitted voters.

Speaking of evidence, it is difficult to imagine evidence more persuasive than having a baby about whether a woman has ever been with a man. Yet, the religious commitment is that Baby Jesus' mother hadn't. These are the same voters, about half of living people, as who are committed to a historical Jesus from non-evidentiary principles. So, it is also pretty much hopeless that our sceptic could ever be in a majority among all humans with an opinion.

And one other thing:

Buy what I see on forums like this are laymen adopting the minority view and looking down their nose at those who accept the scholarly majority, ...

As soon as you raise the professional-lay distinction, then you open the door to the observation that a professional in the humanities (like a historian) isn't necessarily a professional in normative uncertain reasoning.

You never know, PA, somebody else participating in the forums you read might be. That being the case, if historians were to refuse to engage in an interdisciplinary examination of questions arising, then that would hardly be conduct becoming a scholar.

[Doug1029]

After redding about half of Bart Ehrman's book, "Did Jesus Exist", as well as several other books on the subject, I think it's fair to say that Jesus' existence is about as close to certain as we can get to a figure from that time period. The historical method doesn't work on certainty but probability, but saying "Jesus probably existed" doesn't quite capture the near certainty of his existence.

There are actual Roman records that Pontius Pilate was a real person, a knight of the equestrian order, who ruled Iudea from 26 to 36 AD. The biblical Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus and died during the reign of Tiberius - two historical figures from the time. Josephus was ALMOST a contemporary, having been born in 37 AD. Philo of Alexandria was born in 25 BC and died in 47 AD. Herod the Great (an Arab) was elected King of the Jews by the Roman Senate in 40 BC and died in 4 BC. Herod Archelaus was Tetrarch of Judea from 4 BC to 6 AD. Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee from 4 BC to 39 AD. Philip the Tetrarch was Tetrarch of Batanaea from 4 BC to 34 AD. Salome I was Toparch of Jabneh from 4 BC to 10 AD. And I haven't even started on lists of Temple officials and the Sanhedrin. All these and numerous Roman statesmen and a few generals were well-documented contemporaries of the biblical Jesus. Some have dozens of ancient records documenting them. Jesus, on the other hand, had none. There are dozens of better-documented people from the time. So much for Jesus' existence even being close to certain.

BUT: there MIGHT be some historical references to the biblical Jesus. Josephus mentions nineteen people named Jesus, most of whom are not even close to being the biblical Jesus, but a few have some tantalizing characteristics. Jesus of Lydda was crucified. There were several Temple officials named Jesus, including one whose brother, James, was stoned to death in a Temple power-struggle.

The founder of the Nazarenes was named Jesus, making him Jesus of Nazarus. According to tradition, he was murdered by the Romans and his body hung on a tree. But at the time he lived, Rome hadn't yet invaded Judea, so it is hard to see how the Romans were involved.

I speculate that the Jesus stories are an amalgam of different people named Jesus, each contributing part of the story. Every time a person named Jesus did something, folklore added the incident to the story. All these people were telling the truth as they saw it - it's just that they were talking about different people named Jesus. SO: was the biblical Jesus "historical?" No. Did someone who served as a nucleus for the stories actually live? Maybe. And that is the best that history can do.

Doug

[Doug1029]

You think Jesus did little or nothing historic in his life time? but rather he only inspired a few other people who did? Where did you come up with this information ?

SO: just what was "historic" that Jesus did?

Doug

[Dark_Grey]

Religion may be over for you, but I didn't grow up in a Christian home and yet as a 19-year old studying at university I converted to Christ. Perhaps you've decided God is not for you, and I'm cool with that, but not by any means would it be correct to say that religion is worthless.

I didn't say it was worthless, I said it was "irrelevant". Irrelevant things can still have their place. All I'm trying to say is, religion has no credibility in this day and age because now we can get to the bottom of things. We can read the Bible instead of being read to. We can look up and verify (or discredit,) all the little facts and details. These are not things we could easily do before. Religion was not created with the foresight that one day the entire world could put it under a microscope and examine what they'd believed for so long. This is a modern world built for the mind, not the spirit. We want concrete answers, not belief in things we can't prove.

[Doug1029]

I have always run into this "the scholars agree that Jesus probably existed."

It's funny how those who choose this method can never cite the evidence, even many of the scholars they quote can't do that.

l am not sure what they mean by "Jesus" and there is always that "probably" in there, and one has to ask "what scholars?"

"Probably" leaves open the fact that we can never know for sure. The evidence simply doesn't exist and may never have existed.

I tend to refrain from quoting scholars and try to go back to the original evidence, as one can always find someone to say what is desired, and it proves nothing.

How do I make that thumbs-up emoticon?

Whether "Jesus" actually existed is kinda beside the point. He was not God, and did none of the things we are told or his presence would have been a sensation and we would have all sorts of independent, non-mythical sources to rely on. As a matter of historical evidence, I think he is pure myth, but of course it's like Robin Hood, and one can never be certain. Nor can one be certain about the Loch Ness Monster.

Note that the "Loch Ness Monster" was reported by Saint Columba. Wise to be careful about those ancient writings.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

Note that the "Loch Ness Monster" was reported by Saint Columba. Wise to be careful about those ancient writings.

Doug

If I remember correctly it was not reported by St. Columba, but a later account in a tale that expresses faith.The creature appeared to attack a swimming Man, and Columba commanded the beast to leave the Man alone in the name of God.The beast retreated back to the depths.

I am working on memory about this account from prior research.

[Doug1029]

So the alternative to relying on the considered opinion of those who have literally spent years devoted to a subject area, enough so as to acquire university honours and PhD's, is to rely on yourself, who has not even taken a basic entrance-level university course on the topic.

I am not familiar with Frank Merton's cv. How is it you know that he has not spent years studying Christian history? Might he have studied something in a related field, like historical investigations or scientific methods? Some of those OT stories require a geologist or physicist to explain - like the waves at the Red Sea crossing, or the lack of gold in Sinai (Just where did they get the gold for that "golden calf?"), or how Moses could actually have purified that spring. It takes a military historian to realize that the Exodus was a military expedition with experienced soldiers among its ranks.

University education can have the ill effect of channelizing one's thinking, of leading one to reject lines of enquiry because they don't fit the mold. But things taught by universities allow one to save a lot of time by avoiding thoroughly-researched and fruitless lines of enquiry. The best researchers have devised ways to use their training and at the same time, break out of established lines of thinking. It's a balancing act.

And yes, I am accusing you of something. It seems that you've got a nice little niche where no matter what scholar I quote, the source is invalid. I wish I had it that easy sometimes

It would help a lot if you were able to cite some evidence. You tend to post references to huge books that require weeks or years of study to ferret out what's in them and in the end, may not have any evidence to cite. The idea of a citation is that you are helping the reader find support for your ideas, preferably by citations leading to the exact sentence. If you do not provide that support, one suspects that you are trying to hide a lack of evidence. The idea is to facilitate understanding, not obscure it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

If I remember correctly it was not reported by St. Columba, but a later account in a tale that expresses faith.The creature appeared to attack a swimming Man, and Columba commanded the beast to leave the Man alone in the name of God.The beast retreated back to the depths.

I am working on memory about this account from prior research.

I believe you're right. I am working under the same handicap.

Doug

[redhen]

If you followed everything Ehrman says you would not be a Christian,

That's simply not the case. "Ehrman’s mentor and professor, Dr. Bruce Metzger, essentially published everything which Ehrman has popularized, albeit for a scholarly audience."

Metzger, unlike Ehrman is still a devout Christian.

http://seektheos.com...bout-the-bible/

[Davros of Skaro]

This is all the evidence for Jesus a Muslim needs, and that is a talking Baby Jesus.

Quran 19:30-31

So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?"

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.

http://quran.com/19/27-38

The same neurological forces are at work for millions of Muslims as it is with Christians for the Biblical account of Jesus.I did not know 3/4th of the things I know now compared to when I was 10 years old when I rejected the NT as Myth.One does not need to be an historian to see the fail in primitive thinking these so called Holy Books convey.Wanting to believe is one of the biggest obstacles the mind can face.Sprinkle in some fear for not believing, and a great reward for believing is a recipe most beneficial for the very much Human Chef.

Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic

http://freethoughtbl...r/archives/1026

Edited January 22, 2014 by davros of skaro

[redhen]

Waited too long to edit my post on Bart Ehrman. It's important to note that all these "variances" in Biblical texts was not a major stumbling block for Bart's faith. The real show-stopper was his realization that the Bible fails to answer the problem of evil.

"Ehrman's inability to reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of real life led the former pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church to reject Christianity."

http://www.bartdehrm...ods_problem.htm

[+Link of Hyrule]

I didn't say it was worthless, I said it was "irrelevant". Irrelevant things can still have their place. All I'm trying to say is, religion has no credibility in this day and age because now we can get to the bottom of things. We can read the Bible instead of being read to. We can look up and verify (or discredit,) all the little facts and details. These are not things we could easily do before. Religion was not created with the foresight that one day the entire world could put it under a microscope and examine what they'd believed for so long. This is a modern world built for the mind, not the spirit. We want concrete answers, not belief in things we can't prove.

Then I'll rephrase - God, religion, the Bible, these things are far from irrelevant to me. In fact, they are probably the most important things in my life! As said, if you've decided that they're irrelevant then good luck, I say. Just don't attempt to speak for everyone, for clearly you'd be wrong

[+Link of Hyrule]

Q is a HYPOTHETICAL document

True, but the hypocritical document does for the available evidence, so it I'd generally agreed that the Q document did at one point exist.

Matthew/Mark must be accepted as a single source; they are not independent.

Matthew had access to Mark, agreed. But the differences between them are equally telling.

I am not familiar with the SQ, M and L Documents. Could you please enlighten us with some further information about who discovered them and what they say?

Like Q, these are hypothetical works (not necessarily documents though, M and L could refer to a body of oral tradition that the authors had available). SQ stands for "Signs Source". Whereas Q is a sayings source, SQ is a text of signs and portents, and is argued to be the primary source behind John's gospel. M and L refer to texts that Matthew and Luke may have had access to, and collectively cover any texts they had, and the oral tradition that accompanies. Due to the different "voices" identified in the writings, there is more evidence for L than for M.

Those same “experts” you like to quote tell us that Luke was derived in part from Matthew/Mark and in part from another, unknown, document. There goes your independence again. An event told in Matthew does not become independent when Luke copies it.

It's the differences that are as compelling as the similarities. The fact that all the gospels include material foreign to other suggests that they had access to information that the other sources did not - hence they are independent.

Moreover, Luke readily admits that he's simply attempting to document the events. He had access to Mark, that's a given. And yet Luke notes in chapter 1 that he's attempting to do this because others have tried without success. Luke's opinion of Mark, then, must be low, if he thinks Mark's text was a failure.

[Bluefinger]

Waited too long to edit my post on Bart Ehrman. It's important to note that all these "variances" in Biblical texts was not a major stumbling block for Bart's faith. The real show-stopper was his realization that the Bible fails to answer the problem of evil.

"Ehrman's inability to reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of real life led the former pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church to reject Christianity."

http://www.bartdehrm...ods_problem.htm

I suppose it is too late to ask, "Why was the problem of evil the determining factor?"

[Davros of Skaro]

Here is a good analogy for the Gospels.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n1XB0xCVRM[/media]

Look how emotional these convention goers are over a work of fiction with a positive message.

Now think how 2,000 years ago a fictional positive message can evolve as true.

Edited January 23, 2014 by davros of skaro

[ellapenella]

In reading over that post I couldn't help but to reflect on MLK when he found himself at his table midnight questioning the nature of evil and all...Only difference I can gather is that MLK was a more humble , sincere and truly spiritual man than that guy..

[redhen]

I suppose it is too late to ask, "Why was the problem of evil the determining factor?"

Prof. Ehrman could not find an answer to the evidential natural evil in the world and reconcile that with an omnibenevolent God.

I did a quick search and turned up this lecture.

[media=]

[/media]