(October 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And GC said "you can't prove it", instead of, for instance, "can you prove it?" One is a request or perhaps a challenge for evidence; the other is a blanket rejection of the claim, forestalling further discussion.

Well if you insist DP can you prove it's not history?

GC

(October 17, 2013 at 10:44 pm)Godschild Wrote: Well if you insist DP can you prove it's not history?

Just to name a few things...

Booming voices from the sky.
Zombies.
Healing entire crowds of people.
Disease, it turns out, is actually caused by demons.
Three different people brought back from the dead.
Thousands fed with magically generated food, on two occasions.
A slaughter of all the infants around Jerusalem with no mention of it anywhere else.

Yeah, sounds like a history book to me.

Quote:...Jesus goes immediately into the wilderness for 40 days in all three synoptics, though this contradicts John who has Jesus spend the next three days gathering disciples and attending a wedding.

There is no unbroken day-by-day chronology of events in the Johannine Gospel which would prevent Jesus from having been out in the wilderness prior to John 1:29.

Isnt it true that John the Baptists past tense words at 1:32 are a recounting of something that had already happened? John is testifying about Jesus after John has already seen the Holy Spirit come down.

The text of John's testimony of a past event is plain enough to most Christians. But even if you find it ambiguous enough to re-interpret another way, you cannot shoe-horn in your abstract interpretation when it directly conflicts with the equally plain account in Mark which has Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days SOON after the baptism in the Jordan.

Answer this. Do you think the writer/presbyter of John was unaware of Matthew, Mark and Luke's accounts of the baptism?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

Actually they share little....

One thing left out of the chart is the remarkable different between jesus' alleged trial.

In mark, jesus stands there like a dope while being questioned but in john he chatters like a teen age girl describing getting laid for the first time.

Both portrayals may be but one must be false.

(October 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh dear, I went too fast again.

No, you non sequitured again.

Quote:OK, think about this as an "since/then" question.

Since: Early Christians who lived during the time of John debated whether or not there was a flesh-and-blood Jesus.
Then: Why are you so sure they would have known Herod the Great died before Quirinius came to administer Syria?

Non sequitur and poisoning the well fallacies. Theological positions have nothing to do with mundane history.

Quote:None that I know of.

So your point is?

(October 17, 2013 at 11:45 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: There is no unbroken day-by-day chronology of events in the Johannine Gospel which would prevent Jesus from having been out in the wilderness prior to John 1:29.

What Bible are you reading? JtB makes it clear he is seeing JC for the first time at that point. JC couldn't have had his wilderness adventures with Satan prior because the Synoptics maintain this happened after his meeting with JtB.

Quote:John
1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me
1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

I don't know how he could be more clear that this is the day the two met and the next day...

Quote:The text of John's testimony of a past event is plain enough to most Christians. But even if you find it ambiguous enough to re-interpret another way, you cannot shoe-horn in your abstract interpretation when it directly conflicts with the equally plain account in Mark which has Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days SOON after the baptism in the Jordan.

Mark uses the word "immediately".

Quote:Answer this. Do you think the writer/presbyter of John was unaware of Matthew, Mark and Luke's accounts of the baptism?

OK, note to you and John V, I'm not responsible for reading the minds of the original authors, who's very identity is highly dubious in the first place, knowing what they actually knew and accounting for why they fucked up as badly as they did or why the early Christians failed to notice it. All I'm responsible for in this debate is reading what's written in the pages of your scripture and pointing out what contradicts and where.

That said, yes, it is quite possible that the author of John was either unaware of the other accounts or simply dismissed them as "wrong". Just as it would make no difference to you if I were to show you "look, the Bible and the Koran contradict each other about what Jesus said", it would make no difference to the early Christians to point out contradictions between the different Gospels.

Try to imagine that for a moment. Someone says to you, "look, the Bible and the Koran contradict each other about what Jesus said."

I'm guessing you would shrug and say, "yeah, so?" You could care less what the Koran has to say about Jesus, right?

Now you understand what early Christians must have thought of Gospels that were not the ones they preferred and why contradictions between them were of no concern to them.

There... was... no... New Testament!

There... was... no... single... unified... "early Church".

(October 18, 2013 at 8:02 am)John V Wrote: Non sequitur and poisoning the well fallacies. Theological positions have nothing to do with mundane history.

I'm sorry. I can't go any slower.

Can anyone else help me out here?

Quote:So your point is?

Lost on you it would seem.

(October 18, 2013 at 8:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: There... was... no... New Testament!

There wasn't a finalized NT, but the books that eventually formed it got around much earlier than you seem to think.

Ignatius of Antioch lived ~35 - 110AD. His letters include quotations from both Matthew and Luke, as well as a number of other NT books.

---

(October 18, 2013 at 8:12 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm sorry. I can't go any slower.

It's not a matter of speed. Again, you're committing the non sequitur and poisoning the well fallacies.

Quote:Lost on you it would seem.

You don't want to flesh it out because it would be exposed as a priori and poisoning the well fallacies.

---

(October 17, 2013 at 11:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Disease, it turns out, is actually caused by demons.

The rest is simply an a priori rejection, but I wanted to comment on this common and incorrect charge. The gospels don't say that demons cause disease. They speak of disease and demon possession as two different things.

Matt 4:24
Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.

Mark 1:34
Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him.

Luke 9:1
Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.

(October 18, 2013 at 8:43 am)John V Wrote: Ignatius of Antioch lived ~35 - 110AD. His letters include quotations from both Matthew and Luke, as well as a number of other NT books.

Wasn't he the early church father who thought Jesus was executed sometime during the reign of Trajan (circa 90 CE)? Or was he the one who thought Jesus was executed under Alexander Janiaus (circue 100 BCE)? I'll have to look that up but suffice to say there was much division in the early church on the details of the life of Jesus.

Quote:It's not a matter of speed. Again, you're committing the non sequitur and poisoning the well fallacies.

It's a matter of you making wild assumptions and me providing you with examples of how those assumptions aren't supported by what we know.

Quote:You don't want to flesh it out because it would be exposed as a priori and poisoning the well fallacies.

This is special pleading. You don't regard the Iliad as a historical document that confirms the existence of Zeus. Fanciful tales, however they may be set in a historical context, are not themselves historical documents.

As for your accusation of a priori assumptions, yes I assume naturalism, I've explained why this is the only logical stance to take and you must prove me wrong.

(October 18, 2013 at 9:27 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Wasn't he the early church father who thought Jesus was executed sometime during the reign of Trajan (circa 90 CE)? Or was he the one who thought Jesus was executed under Alexander Janiaus (circue 100 BCE)?

No and no.

Quote:I'll have to look that up but suffice to say there was much division in the early church on the details of the life of Jesus.

IOW you need to introduce red herrings to try to dodge the point that the NT writings were circulated fairly quickly after they were written and people did indeed have Matthew to compare to Luke, yet didn't find them contradictory.

Quote:It's a matter of you making wild assumptions and me providing you with examples of how those assumptions aren't supported by what we know.

Again, it's a non sequitur and poisoning the well to say that varying theological positions means that people didn't know mundane history.

Quote:This is special pleading. You don't regard the Iliad as a historical document that confirms the existence of Zeus. Fanciful tales, however they may be set in a historical context, are not themselves historical documents.

I don't regard the Iliad as such because there's no evidence that the authors themselves regarded it as any more than fanciful tales. We do have evidence that the NT writers considered their works to represent actual events.

Quote:As for your accusation of a priori assumptions, yes I assume naturalism, I've explained why this is the only logical stance to take and you must prove me wrong.

It's a philosophical position that can't be proven right or wrong. You're welcome to it, but many people won't simply accept it. You must know that, else you wouldn't bother trying to show contradictions.