(October 27, 2013 at 8:14 pm)Tkcjpii Wrote: Most remained jew? Whose blind here? You mean how did Christianity spread to every corner of the earth in a few hundred years after, and even topple the roman empires idol worship, having the emperor convert to Christianity and finally legislate religious tolerance?

Technically, Christianity merely substituted its own idols to worship for the ones the Romans had. When you say an emperor converted to Christianity and went on to legislate religious tolerance .. are you shitting me? Christians have never distinguished themselves in the tolerance department. I suspect what you mean is that the emperor switched from cracking down on Christians to cracking down on non-Christians. That's the true Christian way.

(October 27, 2013 at 8:14 pm)Tkcjpii Wrote: Most remained jew? Whose blind here? You mean how did Christianity spread to every corner of the earth in a few hundred years after, and even topple the roman empires idol worship, having the emperor convert to Christianity and finally legislate religious tolerance? You mean that religion? how's come? Duh, maybe it's just smoke and mirrors. Wow.

Christianity was adopted by a Roman Emperor because he rightly judged that he could make people who might not be so enthusiastic about killing for the emperor enthusiastic about killing for Jesus. Once established as a state religion, there was immediate and brutal persecution of competing religions internally. Then, the empire breaks apart, leaving behind a void which is filled by many marauding barbarian kingdoms who get in on the Christ thing and put it to use in their various bloodlettings. Eventually, Christendom decides to spread via the sword to Iberia and the Middle East, by firearm and disease to the entire Western Hemisphere, and by slave chains to millions of Africans. It sits put for a few centuries more where it is maintained by persecution, pogrom, and the occasional massacre. And that's not even counting where Christians kill other Christians for not being the right Christians or some other profoundly stupid reason.

Your religion is a fucking virus, spreading through death, misery, rape and theft.

Wow.

When you put it that way it makes it sound really bad.

(October 27, 2013 at 5:42 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(October 27, 2013 at 7:37 am)xpastor Wrote: Why am I not surprised that Dallas Theological Seminary where Wallace teaches upholds the authority and inerrancy of the scriptures, in fact, puts it first on their list of doctrines to which students are required to adhere.

A commitment to inerrancy undermines biblical scholarship as the conclusions are predetermined in advance of any evidence. I know whereof I speak having emerged from the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, aka Misery Synod.

The upholder of inerrancy is a priori prevented from considering the possibility of multiple strands of authorship in a document and is required to come up with the most incredible bullshit to reconcile conflicting narratives of the same event. It ultimately leads to the dishonest translations of the NIV, which does not scruple to insert words in the translation which have absolutely no warrant in the original text.

If your point is that he's biased and his work isn't professional in its approach, based on where he teaches, then I'm afraid you've failed to raise a convincing concern. We have a college in Canberra called StMarks which has the exact opposite reputation, yet I know some of the teachers there are extremely evangelical. So don't stoop so low as to try and raise concerns about someone's character and more importantly the quality of their work, base on where they work.

As for that and NIV translation problems, you've just jumped a huge canyon to make that link. Evangelicals don't like the NIV because of the fact that it sways quite a way from a literal reading of the Greek in a number of places.

I did not impugn Professor Wallace's character. I daresay he sincerely believes in the inerrancy of the Bible as I once did 35 years ago. Nevertheless, it is a problem for scholarship. Confirmation bias creates enough difficulties in any discipline, but a presumption of inerrancy raises bias to the level of a methodological principle. I will come back to this point in a little while.

First, I will say that I found Wallace's argument lame. For those who did not watch the video, it turned on the correct text for one Bible verse, Matthew 24:36.

Quote:No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.

Many old manuscripts omit the phrase "nor the Son" but most modern translations include it. It is a principle of textual criticism that normally the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Many Christians who believe in the divine nature of Jesus Christ would have difficulty with the idea that he does not know everything; the tendency would be to assume the phrase was a mistake of an earlier copyist and to leave it out. Basically that's what Ehrman says in his book Misquoting Jesus: in many cases "proto-orthodox" scribes left out the phrase.

Now in the parallel passage in Mark only two manuscripts leave out the same phrase, so for Wallace that shoots down any idea of a "conspiracy" [his word] of the proto-orthodox trying to push their own views. He asks, if they took it out of Matthew, why did they not take it out of Mark. This introduces a false picture in two respects. First, Ehrman never said or implied that it was a conspiracy. It would be many cases of one lone scribe copying a manuscript and feeling his predecessor must have made a mistake. Second, the same scribe would not be going through the whole New Testament. He would only have a scroll with one of the gospels and would be unlikely to move on from Matthew to Mark. As to why Mark has fewer emendations here, my guess, only a guess, is that Mark was less popular than Matthew, so there were fewer manuscripts to begin with and those manuscripts would be less likely to wear out and need replacement—at least it is the case that for early papyrus fragments Matthew far outnumbers Mark by a ratio of 23:3.

As for the general issue of inerrancy I can only say that I have seen far too many otherwise intelligent people go through unbelievable intellectual contortions to argue that there is no difference in two incompatible accounts of the same incident. If you had an anthology of ancient Greek literature you would feel no compulsion to reconcile disparate accounts of the gods in Homer, Hesiod and Aeschylus. What reason can you give for the different treatment of another anthology of ancient writings?

This is getting tedious, but there are glaring inconsistencies and unhistorical details in the two birth narratives of Jesus.

In Luke's account Mary conceives in the reign of Herod the Great (latest date 4 BCE) but gives birth during the governorship of Quirinius (earliest date 6 CE) resulting in a 10 year pregnancy as mentioned in another thread. Historically speaking, the chances are virtually zero that Augustus ordered an empire-wide census and that we have no record of this in ancient historians or in official records. It is also very unlikely that the Romans who were only interested in collecting money would develop the impractical scheme of having everyone return to the locality his ancestors originally came from. The issue is that Jesus was known to come from Nazareth in Galilee, but Christians were claiming that Bible verses about a king born in Bethlehem were a prophecy of their messiah. So Matthew and Luke had to work Bethlehem and Nazareth into the story but they (or the traditions they represent) chose very different solutions.

Luke has a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, accommodation in a stable because there was no room at the inn, heavenly choirs, shepherds coming to visit the baby but no wise men and a fairly speedy return to Nazareth.

Matthew mentions no journey from Nazareth, the impression is that Mary and Joseph are residents of Bethlehem. No choirs of angels (how could he have missed that?), no shepherds, but there are wise men. Mary and Joseph seem to remain in Bethlehem a long time as Herod finds it necessary to order the death of all male children under the age of two years. They flee to Egypt, stay there an indeterminate length of time, come back to Judea, but fear the new ruler, and decide to settle in far-off Nazareth, described as if it were a new home for them.

Now I know the stock fundamentalist harmonization is that Matthew just didn't mention the original journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Luke didn't mention the wise men or the side-trip to Egypt, but it all really happened as related in both accounts. If you believe that, I have a lovely vacation property for you on Ellesmere Island.

Attempts to harmonize the two fall down on the different timetables for the return from Bethlehem to Nazareth. Luke has them go back right after Mary has completed the purification rites required after the birth of a male child, i.e., 41 days after the birth of Jesus. No time for a trip to Egypt. No hope of reconciling the two accounts in all their details.

I think you really need to nail down what you mean by faith if we are to have a productive exchange of ideas. Hope and Faith are not synonyms within this context. Additionally, Are we talking about faith-based beliefs or are we talking about evidence-based beliefs?

Do you see a reason as to why this needs to be clarified?

It seems to me that you are conflating the existance of Jesus as an actual man, and the claims made both by him and about him. You seem to be saying there's evidence for all of it, and then claiming that Atheists are being unreasonable for not recognizing your evidence. Is this right?

While I wouldn't pretend to be able to speak for all Atheists, I am one that would like a chance to reconcile your objections. I just need you to specify a few things so that I know how to proceed. Whether or not a man named Jesus Christ actually existed is one thing, and I will grant it for the sake of simplifying our exchange. What I don't believe is (A) He did the things he did, and-(B) The things he claimed were true.

Are you saying that there is evidence for A and B and that Atheists are irrationally ignoring it?

(October 28, 2013 at 11:58 am)xpastor Wrote: First, I will say that I found Wallace's argument lame. For those who did not watch the video, it turned on the correct text for one Bible verse, Matthew 24:36.

While I'd allow you to call it boring (if that sort of thing bores you), I wouldn't call "his argument" lame, he simply talks about how the textual variant has little to no impact over the overall meaning of the verse.

Quote:Many old manuscripts omit the phrase "nor the Son" but most modern translations include it. It is a principle of textual criticism that normally the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Many Christians who believe in the divine nature of Jesus Christ would have difficulty with the idea that he does not know everything; the tendency would be to assume the phrase was a mistake of an earlier copyist and to leave it out. Basically that's what Ehrman says in his book Misquoting Jesus: in many cases "proto-orthodox" scribes left out the phrase.

Now in the parallel passage in Mark only two manuscripts leave out the same phrase, so for Wallace that shoots down any idea of a "conspiracy" [his word] of the proto-orthodox trying to push their own views. He asks, if they took it out of Matthew, why did they not take it out of Mark. This introduces a false picture in two respects. First, Ehrman never said or implied that it was a conspiracy. It would be many cases of one lone scribe copying a manuscript and feeling his predecessor must have made a mistake. Second, the same scribe would not be going through the whole New Testament. He would only have a scroll with one of the gospels and would be unlikely to move on from Matthew to Mark. As to why Mark has fewer emendations here, my guess, only a guess, is that Mark was less popular than Matthew, so there were fewer manuscripts to begin with and those manuscripts would be less likely to wear out and need replacement—at least it is the case that for early papyrus fragments Matthew far outnumbers Mark by a ratio of 23:3.

You've made the assumption that Christian scribes were using scrolls in the second century - this is incorrect, they were in fact using codices. The earliest papyrus manuscript we have (P52) is a tiny scrap of what was once the book of John and it's printed on both sides - that's a codex.

Here's a list of the papyrus manuscripts. Some of the other early manuscripts from the second century are P4, P75 which has both Luke and John (and when Luke ends, John begins on the same page), P90, P98, P104, and of course P66 with is a near complete copy of John. Out of those, only P98 is a scroll, the rest are codices.

Quote:In Luke's account Mary conceives in the reign of Herod the Great (latest date 4 BCE) but gives birth during the governorship of Quirinius (earliest date 6 CE) resulting in a 10 year pregnancy as mentioned in another thread.

There are numerous theories on this. Even if Quirinius was governor, there still would not have been an expected census in 6-4 BC. Josephus could have misdated it as well, after all he does get certain other things wrong and he is writing some 30+ years later than Luke. Nevertheless according to Josephus, Varus was governor of Syria at the time Jesus had to have been born. Some have simply suggested the correct reading is "this was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria". Some have suggested that it is entirely possible that Quirinius served a short stint as governor at the time Jesus was born, and then again from 6 AD.

Quote:Historically speaking, the chances are virtually zero that Augustus ordered an empire-wide census and that we have no record of this in ancient historians or in official records. It is also very unlikely that the Romans who were only interested in collecting money would develop the impractical scheme of having everyone return to the locality his ancestors originally came from.

The chances that Luke could make an error regarding these facts is virtually zero. The Census of Quirinius was a famous census, everyone knew about it and remembered it, everyone knew that you didn't have to return to your town of birth, etc. And everyone would have know that Herod was dead at that time. The chances that Luke could make that many mistakes a mere 50 years after the event is untenable.

The bigger problem would be that Luke would have known exactly when this census takes place - 6 AD, and that it would make Jesus too young to begin his ministry and then die on the cross between c. 30-33 AD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the previous census would have been in 10 BC, correct? There's simply no way that Luke would make such a huge error - he must be talking about a census that takes place 6-4 BC, there's simply no other logical explanation.

Another explanation is that it's widely known that the census of 6 AD introduced an inheritance tax, known because Josephus tells us. For this reason, it could have been a requirement that people register at their home towns.

Dio Cassius was a Roman and a historian in the 2nd-3rd century AD. He spent 22 years writing an 80-volume history of Rome spanning back 1,400 years. When he writes about the census of 6 AD, he mentions that the inheritance tax was introduced for the second time, being introduced once before but abolished.

Now although it seems unlikely that such a census would take place separate to the regular ones, we have no other records of this "forgotten" attempt at introducing an inheritance tax, so it is yet another possibility.

So I don't agree with your assertion that there has to be rock-solid proof for a census occurring in 6-4 BC, or it didn't happen. Could it have been an earlier attempt at introducing the inheritance tax? It's plausible. Could it have been for a different political reason now long forgotten? Also plausible.

Quote:Luke has a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, accommodation in a stable because there was no room at the inn, heavenly choirs, shepherds coming to visit the baby but no wise men and a fairly speedy return to Nazareth.

Matthew mentions no journey from Nazareth, the impression is that Mary and Joseph are residents of Bethlehem. No choirs of angels (how could he have missed that?), no shepherds, but there are wise men. Mary and Joseph seem to remain in Bethlehem a long time as Herod finds it necessary to order the death of all male children under the age of two years. They flee to Egypt, stay there an indeterminate length of time, come back to Judea, but fear the new ruler, and decide to settle in far-off Nazareth, described as if it were a new home for them.

Now I know the stock fundamentalist harmonization is that Matthew just didn't mention the original journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Luke didn't mention the wise men or the side-trip to Egypt, but it all really happened as related in both accounts. If you believe that, I have a lovely vacation property for you on Ellesmere Island.

Are you also going to tell me that no other events could have taken place during the period the story covers?

Quote:Attempts to harmonize the two fall down on the different timetables for the return from Bethlehem to Nazareth. Luke has them go back right after Mary has completed the purification rites required after the birth of a male child, i.e., 41 days after the birth of Jesus. No time for a trip to Egypt. No hope of reconciling the two accounts in all their details.

Okay you're really making my head spin, slow down, lol! Your biggest gripe seems to be the fact that he leaves out the trip to Egypt, and that, possibly, Matthew doesn't know that Mary's home town is Nazareth. I'm not entirely sure what your point is?

(October 29, 2013 at 6:18 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 28, 2013 at 11:58 am)xpastor Wrote: In Luke's account Mary conceives in the reign of Herod the Great (latest date 4 BCE) but gives birth during the governorship of Quirinius (earliest date 6 CE) resulting in a 10 year pregnancy as mentioned in another thread.

There are numerous theories on this. Even if Quirinius was governor, there still would not have been an expected census in 6-4 BC. Josephus could have misdated it as well, after all he does get certain other things wrong and he is writing some 30+ years later than Luke. Nevertheless according to Josephus, Varus was governor of Syria at the time Jesus had to have been born. Some have simply suggested the correct reading is "this was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria". Some have suggested that it is entirely possible that Quirinius served a short stint as governor at the time Jesus was born, and then again from 6 AD.

(October 28, 2013 at 11:58 am)xpastor Wrote: Historically speaking, the chances are virtually zero that Augustus ordered an empire-wide census and that we have no record of this in ancient historians or in official records. It is also very unlikely that the Romans who were only interested in collecting money would develop the impractical scheme of having everyone return to the locality his ancestors originally came from.

The chances that Luke could make an error regarding these facts is virtually zero. The Census of Quirinius was a famous census, everyone knew about it and remembered it, everyone knew that you didn't have to return to your town of birth, etc. And everyone would have know that Herod was dead at that time. The chances that Luke could make that many mistakes a mere 50 years after the event is untenable.

The bigger problem would be that Luke would have known exactly when this census takes place - 6 AD, and that it would make Jesus too young to begin his ministry and then die on the cross between c. 30-33 AD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the previous census would have been in 10 BC, correct? There's simply no way that Luke would make such a huge error - he must be talking about a census that takes place 6-4 BC, there's simply no other logical explanation.

Another explanation is that it's widely known that the census of 6 AD introduced an inheritance tax, known because Josephus tells us. For this reason, it could have been a requirement that people register at their home towns.

Dio Cassius was a Roman and a historian in the 2nd-3rd century AD. He spent 22 years writing an 80-volume history of Rome spanning back 1,400 years. When he writes about the census of 6 AD, he mentions that the inheritance tax was introduced for the second time, being introduced once before but abolished.

Now although it seems unlikely that such a census would take place separate to the regular ones, we have no other records of this "forgotten" attempt at introducing an inheritance tax, so it is yet another possibility.

So I don't agree with your assertion that there has to be rock-solid proof for a census occurring in 6-4 BC, or it didn't happen. Could it have been an earlier attempt at introducing the inheritance tax? It's plausible. Could it have been for a different political reason now long forgotten? Also plausible.

(October 28, 2013 at 12:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: While I wouldn't pretend to be able to speak for all Atheists, I am one that would like a chance to reconcile your objections. I just need you to specify a few things so that I know how to proceed. Whether or not a man named Jesus Christ actually existed is one thing, and I will grant it for the sake of simplifying our exchange. What I don't believe is (A) He did the things he did, and-(B) The things he claimed were true.

Are you saying that there is evidence for A and B and that Atheists are irrationally ignoring it?

In a word, yes I am saying that. Critical scholars tell us that 1 & 2 Peter can't have been written by Peter because he was dead by c. 65 AD, and they were probably written later in the 1st century. You can check that fact if you like. Peter was illiterate, and the only way in which he could have written his two epistles was through a scribe anyway.

Now think about this for a second. In the same breath, "critical" scholars claim that Peter dies by 65 AD even though they only have the testimony of church fathers; and knowing that he was an important leader in the early church (the book of Acts makes this clear, and Catholics have long counted him as the first pope) they make the claim that the leader of a church - an early priest - couldn't have written letters by using a scribe!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to accept the history of the church fathers as for the death of Peter, then you should also accept that he was an early Christian priest and of course would have made use of scribes, it goes without saying. Or, you're forced to reject them both together which then puts you in the position that you have no option but to admit that even written later in the 1st century, Peter could well have written/dictated the letters.

Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross. If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax. 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him.

I am unclear as to why you felt it necessary to write so much about Peter, but it is interesting. Thank you for taking the time to share that. When I was in Rome, I visited the Vatican and took a tour of St. Peter’s Basilica. Fascinating stuff really, except the dead popes incased in glass. That was a bit morbid. But, I digress…

(October 31, 2013 at 7:56 am)Aractus Wrote: Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross.

I will grant this as a horrible tragedy. Times were quite barbaric. I must say that I’m happy we no longer use such primitive forms of death penalty, and I long for a world that finds a way to achieve justice while avoiding it all together.

(October 31, 2013 at 7:56 am)Aractus Wrote: If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax.

It sounds like your saying that it was either a hoax, or it was true. Do you believe that somebody cannot truly believe something and yet still be mistaken?

(October 31, 2013 at 7:56 am)Aractus Wrote: 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him.

I think I have the same question here. Do you believe it possible for a person to truly believe something with every fiber of their being, and yet still be mistaken?

I don’t doubt that you do. I would hate to presume incorrectly, but it sounds as though you are a believer in the Judeo Christian God, no doubt?
This implies that you do not recognize the Islamic Allah of the Koran, for both the Bible (John 14:6) and the Koran (5:71-75; 19:30-38), make it implicitly clear that they are the exclusive path to salvation. This makes the gods endorsed by these texts incompatible and mutually exclusive.

What I’m getting at is this:

If it is your belief is that one could not mistake something as true if they are willing to die for it; I am curious as to whether or not you are swayed into believing in Allah, since everyday suicide bombers do that very thing in support of their cause. You did say that you do not think it makes sense for somebody to let themselves be killed for a hoax. It is my guess that you do not find their deaths convincing as proofs for their incompatible God, and if I may extend my guess further, I would guess that you believe those muslims to also be gravely mistaken. Did I understand your proof correctly, or shall we attempt to narrow down this evidence into terms that may be easier for one such as my self to grasp?

(October 31, 2013 at 7:56 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 28, 2013 at 12:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: While I wouldn't pretend to be able to speak for all Atheists, I am one that would like a chance to reconcile your objections. I just need you to specify a few things so that I know how to proceed. Whether or not a man named Jesus Christ actually existed is one thing, and I will grant it for the sake of simplifying our exchange. What I don't believe is (A) He did the things he did, and-(B) The things he claimed were true.

Are you saying that there is evidence for A and B and that Atheists are irrationally ignoring it?

In a word, yes I am saying that. Critical scholars tell us that 1 & 2 Peter can't have been written by Peter because he was dead by c. 65 AD, and they were probably written later in the 1st century. You can check that fact if you like. Peter was illiterate, and the only way in which he could have written his two epistles was through a scribe anyway.

What on earth does the date of 1 & 2 Peter have to do with the question posed by Texas Sailor???

Quote:You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to accept the history of the church fathers as for the death of Peter, then you should also accept that he was an early Christian priest and of course would have made use of scribes, it goes without saying. Or, you're forced to reject them both together which then puts you in the position that you have no option but to admit that even written later in the 1st century, Peter could well have written/dictated the letters.

It ain't necessarily so. First I will note that Ehrman, who is certainly a critical scholar, leaves the authorship of 1 Peter as an open question. He agrees that, if Peter is responsible for the content, it would have been written by a scribe, but he also considers there is a strong possibility that it is a forgery as there are a number of works falsely claiming Peter's authorship, e.g., Gospel of Peter. The argument against authenticity does not depend on denying that Peter could have used a scribe or that he was an early Christian priest. It depends on the fact that systematic persecution of Christians did not begin until 30 years after Peter's supposed death. However, Ehrman allows that there may have been local persecutions in Peter's lifetime. You are trying to smuggle in 2 Peter on the coattails of 1 Peter. Almost all non-fundamentalist scholars reject it because of "its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[10] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2)." (Wikipedia)

Quote:Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross. If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax. 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him.

I know you will not agree, but I think there is good evidence that where the gospels have Jesus speak of his sacrificial death (mainly around the Last Supper) we have later writers putting words in his mouth. Jesus teaching (Sermon on the Mount and parables) was all organized around his sincere belief that the world was going to end within the lifetime of his contemporaries, Matthew 24:36.

In any case you are positing a false dichotomy when you claim that the doctrine must be true because early Christians would not die for a hoax. What about dying for a sincerely mistaken belief? As far as that goes many people have been willing to risk death for causes that did not promise immortal life, for example in wars to protect one's country, and this includes the atheists you will find in foxholes. Muslims have been willing to die for their faith from the time of Mohammed to the present. Does that prove that Mohammed got it right?