(September 15, 2015 at 8:30 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh ye of little faith
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

That's written in the modern Greek alphabet so it was written after 1450.  Besides, if it had been written in the 4th Century the centuries of temperature and humidity fluctuations would have destroyed the vellum.  It's a fake!!

(September 16, 2015 at 3:59 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 8:30 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh ye of little faith
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

That's written in the modern Greek alphabet so it was written after 1450.  Besides, if it had been written in the 4th Century the centuries of temperature and humidity fluctuations would have destroyed the vellum.  It's a fake!!

And you know this better than those who have studied the actual document because....?

(September 15, 2015 at 10:35 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: LOL @ Randy accusing Jenny of "constant harping".

LOL @ rexbeccarox for constant snarking without actually contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.

(September 16, 2015 at 1:55 am)robvalue Wrote: One way I try and get people to reflect upon the standard of evidence they are using is to pose this question:

If you were on trial for murder, and the prosecution presented evidence like this against you, would you accept being found guilty as reasonable (whether or not you did the crime)?

No, rob. No one would.

But then, what can we really know of ancient history if we reject all evidence about it? Not much.

J. Warner Wallace explains:

Quote:There’s a big difference between evaluating witnesses for the purpose of a criminal trial and evaluating witnesses for the purpose of establishing a chronological truth:

Eyewitness Reliability Related to Criminal Trials
The standard for criminal trials is exceptionally high related to eyewitnesses and there’s a good reason for this. We would rather release one hundred guilty people than wrongly convict one innocent person. For this reason, we give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, assume his innocence, and give his defense team every possible opportunity to confront and examine accusers and witnesses. That’s appropriate in criminal trials, even though it often limits the ability of the prosecution to establish the truth.

Eyewitness Reliability Related to Chronological Truths
The standard for establishing historical truths must, by necessity, be very different than the standard for criminal trials, unless, of course, we are willing to reject any claim of history for which we don’t have a living eyewitness (to cross-examine). History is established on the written testimony of eyewitnesses or the research of historians who have access to such testimony. If we rejected every claim about the past that couldn’t be supported by living testimony, we’d be forced to live in the present, unsure of anything that precedes us by more than two generations.

Wallace concludes:

Quote:It’s reasonable to examine the Gospel authors and ask (1) if they were present during Jesus’ ministry, (2) if they can be corroborated in some way, (3) if their testimony has been altered over time, or (4) if they possessed a bias that should exclude their testimony altogether. But it is unreasonable to reject the apostolic accounts simply because they are dead. If we took that approach with everything from the past, we couldn’t even be certain of our own personal family histories. That’s an unreasonable (an impractical) standard to embrace.

Source.

(September 15, 2015 at 8:07 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The other day, I came across an idea of how circumstantial evidence can be used concerning the bible...
It seems Mark is the gospel that was first written.
And it seems that the first versions of this gospel missed a part at the end... the resurrection part. It ends with women finding an empty tomb and telling no one. (if they told no one, how could Mark know about it to write it?)
There are, at least, 3 surviving manuscripts with this version of Mark, all dating from the first 3 centuries CE.

Then, something happens. Mark's gospel gets an addition in tandem with the stories in the remaining gospels... curious that...
It's almost as if Mark didn't know anything about that resurrection...
If he didn't know, then how come the other, later, guys did?
I mean, Mark did know quite a bit about J.C.'s life... what happened to his sources concerning J.C.'s post-life?

This circumstantial evidence suggests, to me, that all the other gospel writers... lied (perhaps not on purpose, they may have just continued a story that was already floating by).

poca-

The original ending of Mark shows clearly that Mark understood that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Here is the text:

Quote:Mark 16:1-8
16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Now, if Mark was completely ignorant of the resurrection at the time he wrote the original ending above, why on earth would he have the young man sitting in the tomb say, "He has risen!"?

Yes, because the body not being there logically means it has risen from the dead.

As a critical thinker in relation to reading, it does not take much effort to realize that logic was not the forte of primitive fiction writers.

The account goes as
- women go to the tomb
- The tomb is empty
- Some guy is inside and that guy is reported to say "he has risen", Don't forget to tell his disciples about it... he's going that way.
- And the women told no one.

And there ends the story.

Maybe Mark was going for a second volume and wanted to keep the audience in suspense, huh?

If the women told no one, how did anyone come to know about that exchange in order to write it down?
Either they did tell someone and the account is true, but not the last bit (the most believable bit)
Or they told no one, and this account can only be fictitious!

That's how circumstantial evidence works, or am I doing it wrong?

(September 15, 2015 at 9:08 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You know, I really would like to take Randy's arguments at face value and assess his sources; but I find all the arrogant posturing extremely offputting. I find myself thinking he's trying to misdirect me.

I apologize. Please allow me to explain.

When I first joined the forum, I was EXTREMELY careful to present myself in a pleasant, low-key manner. But after about 3-4 weeks of daily battering from folks like Min (need I say more?) and you (be honest about that!), I began to wonder if I needed to adopt an "in-your-face" persona to earn some respect from what is obviously a very tough crowd. I felt like I had walked into a biker bar wearing khakis and a pink polo shirt. So, I decided to dish out as good as what I was receiving. However, even then, I chose to respond to each forum member in kind - Jenny A, Julia, Jorm...they were respectful to me, so I tried to be respectful to them. Dyresand, Cato and others...not so much. You may recall that I told you point blank that when you asked an honest question, I would give you a courteous and thoughtful answer. This has been my policy for the past 10 years of online apologetics.

Most recently, I had the opportunity to take a two-week vacation away from the forum. I strongly considered making it permanent, but I concluded that for now, I will continue to interact with those forum members who are offering more substantive arguments and discussion based upon logic, reason, facts, evidence, scholarship, etc. I'm not getting into any more "meme wars" with the less mature members of the forum. It's kinda fun...but ultimately unproductive. No one is really benefiting from such behavior.

In short, I'm going to try to find a reasonable balance somewhere between being a complete jerk and tip-toeing around. And although it goes against my thinking generally to ignore anyone (since it gives the false impression that I'm "afraid" of what they might say), I may add a few of the most offensive people to my ignore list. They aren't really engaging in discussion with me, anyway, so why bother reading their posts?

Finally, I understand that interacting with someone online (which is so devoid of emotive elements of communication) who is confident in their knowledge and beliefs can be "offputting" as you point out...especially regarding a subject like religion which can be so subjective and open to doubt. Your criticism is valid, and I will strive to minimize the "triumphalism" in my posts and arguments. I ask that you put that weakness down to me and not to the gospel as a whole.

It deserves far better consideration than I have encouraged thus far, apparently.

Randy....randy....randy.... your evidence is coming from ignorance that isn't based in reality. christianity (never going to give capitalize the C) is a religion made around
ignorance. The idea of sin is bullshit and sin doesn't exist. christianity's flaw is sin and the fact that you have do god right over something you have done or will do is stupid.
Sin itself is a abstract thought it cannot exist and it is bullshit. There is no black and white good and evil in the world. jesus he never existed get over it the guy never existed to
begin with the historical evidence doesn't add up to the favor of your religion. That being said if he had existed his sacrifice was nulled the second he came back to life.

(September 16, 2015 at 10:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: The account goes as
- women go to the tomb
- The tomb is empty
- Some guy is inside and that guy is reported to say "he has risen", Don't forget to tell his disciples about it... he's going that way.
- And the women told no one.

And there ends the story.

Yes, that's where the original ending leaves it.

With the clear message that HE HAS RISEN.

Now, based on that, can you agree that Mark MUST have known of the resurrection? Otherwise, he would have simply had the young man say, "He is not here." and left it at that.

Quote:Maybe Mark was going for a second volume and wanted to keep the audience in suspense, huh?

No, Mark was the traveling companion of Peter, and he was fully aware of the full gospel message that was being PREACHED. He wrote a brief account of what Peter was teaching, and Matthew, Luke and John filled in some of the blanks later. But the audience was not "kept is suspense" because they heard the oral teaching from the apostles.

[quote[If the women told no one, how did anyone come to know about that exchange in order to write it down?
Either they did tell someone and the account is true, but not the last bit (the most believable bit)

Or they told no one, and this account can only be fictitious!
[/quote]

I think it is reasonable to think that the woman did not say anything to anyone IMMEDIATELY - not that they never said a word EVER for the next 20-30 years before dying and taking the secret of what happened that morning to their graves.

Since Jesus later appeared to the apostles (and the women) in the upper room in Jerusalem, the "secret" was let out of the bag eventually. It seems reasonable to assume that SOMEONE would have asked the ladies what happened that morning.

More likely, however, is that Mark was simply trying to wrap up his gospel (maybe he was running out of papyrus! I'm kidding.) without having to continue the story. It had to end somewhere...otherwise, he would have continued writing his own book of Acts. But that was left to Luke.

Quote:That's how circumstantial evidence works, or am I doing it wrong?

I think the way it works is that investigators consider ALL of the eyewitness accounts and piece together what actually happened from testimony that may actually be in disagreement on some points.

Like how the survivors of the Titanic disagreed over whether the ship broke in two. Or like how the witnesses in Ferguson, MO disagreed over whether Michael Brown was running toward or away from Officer Darren Wilson.