(April 19, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(April 19, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: An even bigger question is with all the editing and revision they did how did they still manage to leave so many contradictions?

I think you have a misconception about how the New Testament was put together.  The individual books were written between . But not all Christian groups had copies of all the books and some groups considered other books not in the New Testament to be sacred.  There wasn't a consensus about which books belonged in the New Testament until the 3rd or 4th Century depending upon what you consider a consensus.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development...ment_canon  And even then it wasn't a really settled matter.  Martin Luther considered taking Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelations out, and did put them in a subordinate position.

Given that the books were transcribed, edited, and preserved seperately, and not in a single volume, contradictions between them aren't surprising. Or, are only surprising if you think they are divinely inspired.

Yes, I'm aware that there was no compilation until the ecumenical councils of the 4th century. Although I did not know about Martin Luther. Learn something new everyday. I guess the lack of a printing press made it hard even for the councils to keep track of everything. Still, the contradictions are so blatant. Ex. after his resurrection Jesus tells Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to his father. Ten verses later he tells Thomas to touch the holes in his hands and feet.. So in many instances we're not talking about discrepancies between separate books.  In many cases books were spiced together with no regard for agreement. Makes me wonder if the writers and editors weren't using opium to induce what they thought was the Holy Spirit.

(April 26, 2015 at 1:28 am)Aractus Wrote: No, it's based on the written record which is all we have. You base your ideas on nothing at all.

When you argue with conspiracy theorists, you'll find that they have this peculiar manner of dismissing even the most trivial of facts that they perceive as threatening the delusional bubble in which they operate.

(April 25, 2015 at 2:59 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(April 19, 2015 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Paul was Greek. He was a Roman citizen and could read and write Greek:

Galations 6:11: "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."
1 Corinthians 16:21 "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand."

As for the others, they probably all could speak Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew (depending on how commonplace it was in first century Jerusalem). The Bible does say that Peter and John were illiterate (Acts 4:13), but it doesn't preclude them from being able to dictate correspondence. Paul used scribes (e.g. Romans 16:22 "I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord."), despite the fact that he could write them himself.

The two main authors of the NT are "Luke" and Paul. Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and by volume it's greater than all of the epistles attributed to Paul combined. We don't know for sure who wrote Luke-Acts, but it is the work of a single author, and was written sometime in the first century. Paul wrote about 7 epistles that we know of, and the others appear to be pseudonymous works. Galations, 1-2 Corinthians, and Romans are all examples of works that Paul DID write.

Paul was the original BS'er.  By his own words he  claimed to be whoever the crowd wanted him to be.  He claimed to have been a Jew, a Roman, maybe a Greek.  Some people thought that he was an Egyptian terrorist.  He was the ultimate con man.

Exactly. And just as Paul was whatever anybody wants him to be, the Bible says whatever anybody wants it to say. They fit like hand and glove.

(April 25, 2015 at 2:59 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Paul was the original BS'er.  By his own words he  claimed to be whoever the crowd wanted him to be.  He claimed to have been a Jew, a Roman, maybe a Greek.  Some people thought that he was an Egyptian terrorist.  He was the ultimate con man.

Are you referring to this passage in 1 Corinthians 9?

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

The original "lying for Christ"?

(April 26, 2015 at 8:25 am)robvalue Wrote: The original "lying for Christ"?

Well, as someone said a couple of posts back, the Bible can be interpreted however one wants to interpret it, though imo we should strive to interpret it correctly, as in how the author intended his audience to perceive it and given the historical context. Personally, I don't see this as an instance of "lying" for the sake of the Gospel as much as I see it as instruction for meeting people where they're at in life for the sake of the Gospel. Sort of how one may dress differently for certain occasions, or use less "appropriate" language amongst their peers than they would with their parents, etc. I think Paul is saying that one must politic, though not necessarily with intention to deceive, but to relate to the person or party in a way that one can establish a good rapport.

(April 26, 2015 at 7:10 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(April 19, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

---

I think you have a misconception about how the New Testament was put together.  The individual books were written between . But not all Christian groups had copies of all the books and some groups considered other books not in the New Testament to be sacred.  There wasn't a consensus about which books belonged in the New Testament until the 3rd or 4th Century depending upon what you consider a consensus.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development...ment_canon  And even then it wasn't a really settled matter.  Martin Luther considered taking Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelations out, and did put them in a subordinate position.

Given that the books were transcribed, edited, and preserved seperately, and not in a single volume, contradictions between them aren't surprising. Or, are only surprising if you think they are divinely inspired.

---

Yes, I'm aware that there was no compilation until the ecumenical councils of the 4th century. Although I did not know about Martin Luther. Learn something new everyday. I guess the lack of a printing press made it hard even for the councils to keep track of everything. Still, the contradictions are so blatant. Ex. after his resurrection Jesus tells Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to his father. Ten verses later he tells Thomas to touch the holes in his hands and feet.. So in many instances we're not talking about discrepancies between separate books.  In many cases books were spiced together with no regard for agreement. Makes me wonder if the writers and editors weren't using opium to induce what they thought was the Holy Spirit.

The biggest problem with understanding how all those blatant contradictions got there is our modern perspective.   Critical thinking is largely a Renaissance and Enlightenment idea.  Up until the 1300 and 1400s history appears to have been largely just a collection of anecdotes.  There are a few exceptions where you see ancient historians actually trying to figure out the contradictions such as Herodotus and Livy, but they're few and far between.

And I don't think the writers of the Gospels saw themselves as writing history. They saw themselves as preserving traditional/sacred lore. What Jesus' different responses to requests to touch his hands and feet tell me is that the author of the Gospel had two or more different sources to work from and rather than leave anything out, he choose them all.  To the extent he left anything out, my guess is his choices were doctrinal.   And he probably wasn't afraid to change the story a little to emphasize a doctrinal point.

And it's kinda lucky for us that the writers of the gospels behaved that way, because the contradictions make it so very clear just how removed they were from actual knowledge of the events they describe.

The OT has similar problems.  Genesis has two complete and contradictory creation myths.  I'm sure both were in a traditional text available to the author(s), and as each contained theological and/or political points they wanted to make, they kept both.  Joshua contains one story of the conquering Canaan, and Judges another very much slower are less miraculous tale of the same events. 

(April 26, 2015 at 4:00 am)Aractus Wrote: My my, isn't it interesting how you're never aware of any evidence?

My, my.  Isn't it interesting how you fall hook, line and sinker for every piece of horseshit announced by some evangelical shithead?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/living/gospel-mummy-mask/

Quote:News of the fragment first came to light in 2012 when its existence was (perhaps inadvertently) announced by Daniel Wallace, founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at Dallas Theological Seminary.


No one saw the text then, and no one has seen it now; though it has been mentioned repeatedly by a select group of people who evidently have been given access to it, its planned date of publication has been consistently pushed back, from an original plan of 2013 to 2015 and now, just this week, all the way to 2017.

Despite the seemingly explosive quality of the news, therefore, it is important to take a step back and consider what is actually being revealed here.
Some people are saying they have this really old and important thing, and they will show it to all the rest of us in a few years. (Essentially, this papyrus is the scholarly equivalent of "my girlfriend who lives in Canada.")

You are far too eager to embrace the claims of these xtian assholes, Danny.  

Isn't it interesting that you link to an article that is purely speculative?

Craig Evans and Daniel Wallace are both respected New Testament scholars.

• "We're recovering ancient documents from the first, second and third centuries. Not just Christian documents, not just biblical documents, but classical Greek texts, business papers, various mundane papers, personal letters," Evans told Live Science. The documents include philosophical texts and copies of stories by the Greek poet Homer....The technique is bringing many new texts to light, Evans noted. "From a single mask, it's not strange to recover a couple dozen or even more" new texts, he told Live Science. "We're going to end up with many hundreds of papyri when the work is done, if not thousands."...Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90. With the nondisclosure agreement in place, Evans said that he can't say much more about the text's date until the papyrus is published.

It speaks volumes about Ehrman that he isn't more excited about this given that he's supposedly a serious New Testament scholar.

Again, for now we have the word of two respected historians who say they have discovered a first century text of one of the Gospels, and yes some scepticism is healthy and it will be interesting to get opinions from other scholars once it is published. Neither Evans or Wallace would want to disgrace their names by making claims that are untrue or exaggerated.

Speculative?  What the fuck are you talking about?

WHERE IS IT?   Your fucking jesus freak heroes are playing "I know something you don't know" and making a claim about a document and you fall for it.

Let them produce it and give reputable scholars a crack at it.  Then you can talk to me about "speculative."

Sometimes  you don't have the brains you were born with.