(March 13, 2014 at 11:44 am)Deidre32 Wrote: Yes, that might be fun.
The topic could center around "how does one distinguish between an actual biography and a mere fable?"

I mean, there are ancient bios out there that we all accept without pause, so might be worthy of exploring. Philosophy section?

U stop it right now...

(March 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 13, 2014 at 11:44 am)Deidre32 Wrote: Yes, that might be fun.
The topic could center around "how does one distinguish between an actual biography and a mere fable?"

I mean, there are ancient bios out there that we all accept without pause, so might be worthy of exploring. Philosophy section?

Sure.

If u build it, they will come.

(March 13, 2014 at 10:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: It never was an argument against Christianity, merely against the inerrancy of the bible.

This is very true and very important to remember. Christianity can be teachings of Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, or it can be Coptic ritual or gnostic secrets. For many Christians these doctrines have more importance than the literal truth of any particular story in the bible. (Consider the doctrine of the trinity which is disputed but also central to many Christians. It is at best unclear if the bible supports the doctrine of the trinity)

Having grown up ELCA Lutheran in a church that didn't say the bible was infallible or that it's authors had any superior access to god than anybody else I can say it effectively teaches a soft atheism because the a church that is up front about the fact it does not have a superior moral authority because there are errors in its mythology loses most of the power that makes religion work.

Great username Really?

I think the doubt makes the faith stronger. If that's soft atheism I'm all for it.

(March 14, 2014 at 1:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Great username Really?

I think the doubt makes the faith stronger. If that's soft atheism I'm all for it.

Nothing inherently dangerous in that rationale or anything.

(March 13, 2014 at 3:06 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"

But he didn't! That's just my perception. And if I Then claim my account is the inspired word of God and you read it, thinking it's inerrant then you'd believe that on that day Marvo really DID saw a woman in half!

If a purple robe could be mistaken for a red one, an affair could be mistaken for an immaculate conception, or a chat for healing. If we accept that the authors made mistakes, it opens the door to all kinds of unhappy possibilities. Not least the whole thing being essentially made up!

Well, no you're incorrect. Historians look at ancient texts and ponder upon what the original wording might have been as well as what the author is witnessing and when he wrote the original, etc. With NT Biblical studies the first part is made much easier as there is little textual difference between the early and reliable manuscripts of the books themselves.

Some of the events appear in multiple books of the Bible - written down and recorded separately - and Biblical Scholars are very interested in these as it gives them as close to absolute certainty on certain events as is possible. You only get this for some of the Bible of course, if you were to only keep the material that the most sceptical scholars are "certain of" then you'd have a very short Bible.

So having the same event written down by more than one witness is a great thing. Witness statements never match 100% - ask any cop.

The fact that Jesus stands trial before Pilate is considered very reliable by sceptical scholars (eg Ehram).

Now, as you said the witnesses could potentially be writing about an event unrelated to its apparent meaning. You can't prove a negative though, so it's a moot point. You can claim "until I see proof otherwise, this was a different Pilate and he was in a play", but that would hardly make you right - much less likely to be right.

Generally speaking though, small disagreements like this are what historians look for to verify separate accounts and not a parroting of the same account.

Kudos to the above.

Historians look for things like divergence in details and similitude in major events. This is what you expect to find if multiple people are writing accounts of a series of events.

So actually instead of serving to discredit the gospels, incidents like the one in question serve only to substantiate it.

Has anybody had any keeping the brand anonymous Strawberry yogurt?

(March 14, 2014 at 4:07 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 1:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Great username Really?

I think the doubt makes the faith stronger. If that's soft atheism I'm all for it.

Nothing inherently dangerous in that rationale or anything.

Continual questioning of your ideas is always healthy I thought.