(August 2, 2017 at 5:22 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 4:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: 4. It is your claim they were not eyewitnesses! They claimed they were. Competing claims...I go with them.

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

Luke admits, fairly directly that he wasn't an eyewitness.

Matthew used Mark as a source. Why would an eyewitness not use his own account?

There is no consensus about John, but the majority of scholars believe it was unlikely the anonymous author was an eyewitness.

I posted this earlier:

27 books plus Q, possibly L and M as well. The fact that we don't know who wrote 3-4 of them does not mean what you think it means. Of course the recipients would have known the exact provenance of each. In the case of the three gospels, the people who copied the manuscripts for distribution only felt the need to record whose information was contained in the document (Matthew, Mark, John) and not the guy with the pen. Luke was not a disciple and intended to "write an orderly account" in Luke and Acts. If you want actual eyewitnesses with their names on the books, John, Peter, and James.

Regarding the Matthew, Mark and John--the disciples themselves probably didn't pen the works that have their names. That does not mean the accounts were not theirs. The recipients of the books knew them to come from those three "communities (close followers of that particular disciple)" and identified them as such in our earliest mentions of them in the second century. 

Why did they us Q, and perhaps M and L? Why not? They would have known who wrote them, have them available to read. If they agreed with their content, they used the information.

Could Q, L and/or M have been "oral tales"?

(August 3, 2017 at 5:59 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 1, 2017 at 10:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: it is a national monument populated with the furnishings he sat on. Do you have that for your little Jesus? That right, you don't. Here's a gold star for your book report. (What's that? You can't expect his home to survive 2000 years? Some omnipotence! Some God!)
.

Don't see why not, at least part of the Domus Augusti has survived 2,000 years.

I was anticipating his answer, not making the claim myself. Sorry I did not make it obvious.

(August 3, 2017 at 6:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: Could Q, L and/or M have been "oral tales"?

No more like none existent tales because they are completely made up . More proof biblical studies is off it's rocker.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12352

(August 2, 2017 at 5:47 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 4:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: I accept that there are varying levels of claims about Jesus. I have never been shy about arguing for the most extraordinary version. While I do not think is the only evidence, why wouldn't Jesus' life as described in the gospels be evidence for all three? He didn't just claim to be God, he backed it up with miracles, wisdom in everyday living, knowledge of God, knowledge of Man's condition, explained the need to atonement, provided that atonement, and then rose again. 

I'll admit to not being knowledgeable on the particulars of the Bible, but I do recall that the several books were not written at the same time.
The chronological order by which they were written, at least, so far as can be ascertained today, does present a growing "mythification" of the Jesus person. I think it was Min who already presented some of that here on this thread (maybe even today).
At first we have the historical Jesus, the one who is not the son of any god nor performs miracles, but teaches the scriptures.
At the end, we have a Jesus born of a virgin, son of a god, and who performs all sort of miracles...

A clear evolution of the myth is present there, hinting at a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "extraordinary version", as you call it.[1]


But are those books bound in the Bible in their real chronological order? Or in some special order that diminishes the odds of you finding such an evolution? [2]

(August 2, 2017 at 4:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding 1 specifically, Romans 1:19-21 applies. 

This means information that can be gleaned from Natural Theology of which we can derive quite a few formal arguments from and from those, we can infer a decent amount of information about God (timeless, powerful, omniscient, a personal orderly mind, etc.).

I've heard of that Natural Theology... championed by Aquinas, right?... it is essentially a series of arguments from ignorance... mostly ignorance of physics (some of it, we are still today ignorant of). [3]

But we can try to philosophize about some of those godly attributes...
- timeless - what does this mean?! not bound by time? not present in time? Existing in the absence of time? How does that work? All our verbs imply the existence of time. Any action implies the passage of time, the existence of time. I cannot think of what it may mean to not be present in time... and I'm a physicist with a decent notion of how time flows in some exotic conditions.... but it's always there. No time, means no action, no action means nothing happens.... ever, never.... damn, these words imply time, too. No time means that any action is impossible. Meaning that a creative action is also impossible. Meaning that a conscious thought is impossible. At least, impossible according to the way we consider these actions. If there is another way, I'd like to know about it.... but not by believing it to exist... by actually knowing about it.

- powerful - if such an entity exists that can generate a Universe, yes, I'd agree it to be quite powerful... But this is working things through the wrong way... you were proposing that from Nature, we arrive at these features... and at the very existence.

- omniscient - all knowing? That's a stretch, in my view... how do you get there?

- an orderly mind - As orderly as quantum physics, I suppose...

I have't seen a post from Min in quite a while. If he had something interesting to say, someone is going to have to repeat it if you want me to comment on it.

1. Why do you think we have two different versions of Jesus? There are not two versions in which to choose from (at least from people who would have been eyewitnesses, or close to them, to the events). 

2. They are in basic chronological order. They were not written in that order. This fact is part of the evidence. The church did not start and grow based on the gospels. They already believed the core of Christianity well before any of the books in the NT were written. We know that because Paul wrote to them (starting in the 50's) and often started his letters agreeing on their mutual beliefs about Jesus. 

3. He is well know. The are all metaphysical arguments. None of the arguments have been undercut by science. I would be happy to discuss the rest in another thread.

(August 2, 2017 at 7:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 3:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims.

Well, there it is, folks. A refreshing piece of honesty. Atheists have no interest in evidence that does not already confirm their opinions.

And you think written claims of supernatural events of two millennia ago, with no outside corroboration is good evidence.  Good for you.

(August 3, 2017 at 7:01 am)SteveII Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 5:47 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I'll admit to not being knowledgeable on the particulars of the Bible, but I do recall that the several books were not written at the same time.
The chronological order by which they were written, at least, so far as can be ascertained today, does present a growing "mythification" of the Jesus person. I think it was Min who already presented some of that here on this thread (maybe even today).
At first we have the historical Jesus, the one who is not the son of any god nor performs miracles, but teaches the scriptures.
At the end, we have a Jesus born of a virgin, son of a god, and who performs all sort of miracles...

A clear evolution of the myth is present there, hinting at a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "extraordinary version", as you call it.[1]


But are those books bound in the Bible in their real chronological order? Or in some special order that diminishes the odds of you finding such an evolution? [2]


I've heard of that Natural Theology... championed by Aquinas, right?... it is essentially a series of arguments from ignorance... mostly ignorance of physics (some of it, we are still today ignorant of). [3]

But we can try to philosophize about some of those godly attributes...
- timeless - what does this mean?! not bound by time? not present in time? Existing in the absence of time? How does that work? All our verbs imply the existence of time. Any action implies the passage of time, the existence of time. I cannot think of what it may mean to not be present in time... and I'm a physicist with a decent notion of how time flows in some exotic conditions.... but it's always there. No time, means no action, no action means nothing happens.... ever, never.... damn, these words imply time, too. No time means that any action is impossible. Meaning that a creative action is also impossible. Meaning that a conscious thought is impossible. At least, impossible according to the way we consider these actions. If there is another way, I'd like to know about it.... but not by believing it to exist... by actually knowing about it.

- powerful - if such an entity exists that can generate a Universe, yes, I'd agree it to be quite powerful... But this is working things through the wrong way... you were proposing that from Nature, we arrive at these features... and at the very existence.

- omniscient - all knowing? That's a stretch, in my view... how do you get there?

- an orderly mind - As orderly as quantum physics, I suppose...

I have't seen a post from Min in quite a while. If he had something interesting to say, someone is going to have to repeat it if you want me to comment on it.

When he manages to put the minimalistic posting style aside, he can actually provide some neat historical info:

(August 2, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

The problem there is that "most scholars" grasp onto 70 because they are smart enough not to put any credence in the absurd concept of "prophecy." This is designed to make them seem less stupid than the three shits who think that miracles are real in this thread. The problem is whoever wrote what later came to be called the gospel of mark did not address the situation in 70. Josephus recounts that the city was a burned out, sacked, pillaged, un populated shithole. But it was not leveled. In Mark 13 he has his godboy say that not one stone will remain upon another. So 70 is the terminus a quo, the earliest possible date for the city being burned out by Titus' assault. But that condition remained valid for 65 years. In 135 Emperor Hadrian did, in fact, level the site and build the new city of Aelia Capitolina on the site of the former Jerusalem.

So "mark" is recording an actual historical event. Jerusalem was in fact leveled. But you will wait a long time for any xtian shitwit to admit that their gospel bullshit did not begin ( and remember that 'mark' was first ) until after the Romans suppressed the bar Kokhba revolt.

I suppose they could suggest that mark was too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a burned-out set of ruins and a leveled site suitable for reconstruction. I can't see them rushing to that, either.

(August 3, 2017 at 7:01 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Why do you think we have two different versions of Jesus? There are not two versions in which to choose from (at least from people who would have been eyewitnesses, or close to them, to the events). 

Sure there are two versions..... one shows us a very knowledgeable and philosophical person, while the other shows a human-like with superpowers.
The first is patent in the Jefferson Bible... the second is the mangled notion that people get taught in Sunday school.

(August 3, 2017 at 7:01 am)SteveII Wrote: 2. They are in basic chronological order. They were not written in that order. This fact is part of the evidence. The church did not start and grow based on the gospels. They already believed the core of Christianity well before any of the books in the NT were written. We know that because Paul wrote to them (starting in the 50's) and often started his letters agreeing on their mutual beliefs about Jesus. 

They were not written in that order. There is the problem. I'm looking for the order in which they were written.
Can you provide me with a small description of each gospel, in this order?

(August 3, 2017 at 7:01 am)SteveII Wrote: 3. He is well know. The are all metaphysical arguments. None of the arguments have been undercut by science. I would be happy to discuss the rest in another thread.

Feel free to start it.... and drop a link here so I find it, because I spend most of my time looking through the "My posts" and only occasionally do I check "Today's posts".

(August 2, 2017 at 10:27 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:I see three (alleged) adults getting pissy amused  Pissy because they can't seem to convince other adults belligerent children   Rational adults that fairies the  unreasonable and evidence free consensus of scholars (which is not even true)because appealing to said consensus and fairies  are legit.

(because appealing to consensus is not an argument if the consensus is wrong. Good thing this claim is BS )
Or as carrier points out when apologist trot out this tired dismissal tactic

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553


There fixed it

Copycat. Telling a joke twice doesn't make it twice as funny.

Well reading this thread is working wonders for my insomnia. Think I can go back to sleep now. Thanks.

(August 3, 2017 at 9:37 am)Whateverist Wrote: Well reading this thread is working wonders for my insomnia.  Think I can go back to sleep now.  Thanks.

Really? All it does for me is make my fucking blood boil.