(May 14, 2015 at 5:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Which is why textual criticism becomes so useful...not just with regard to the gospels but also for EVERY ancient work. If you reject the validity of TC for the New Testament, you'll have to be equally harsh on just about every written work of man prior to...what? 1900?

So, the tiresome routine again of explaining how texts, any text, is evaluated by historical science.

If you study history, one of the first tasks you are presented with is a text. You don't get the author, the timeframe or the region where it originated. You have to read it and to make your own judgment based on the text.

So there are three big questions:

WHEN

WHERE

WHY

And to answer you're rather smug comment about other texts being held to the same scrutiny as the bible - suprise, surprise, they are. But usually they don't feature the equivalent of unicorns and fairies, unless they are ancient works of legend and fiction. Which is what makes the bible one of the least believable works of it's period.

Overall the bible itself is just fiction. Fiction stolen from other fictions compiled into the bible. Hell its self was stolen from Egyptian book of the dead.
jesus is not original either i can keep going on the bible is not historically accurate at all.

simply put to this point.  If I have the original Superman 1. comic book, it IS the most accurate comic book.  What you have proved is exactly the same thing.

About the gospels, perhaps you will address this later.  All four are the accounts of jesus' life and death.  All of them "quote" jesus.  None of the "quotes" are the same as others.  Why didn't jesus/god write his own book of "quotes" it would have cleared up a lot of confusion...oh wait...it is in your best interest to keep your believers confused.

By reading your OP I get the feeling you like to hear yourself talk.  Take a breath and ask yourself, do others like to hear you talk as much as YOU do?

Quote:Randy Carson


(And for the record, the Council of Trent formally established the longer version as the "correct" version, so clearly, SOMEBODY thought there was a good basis for doing so.)

Yes. 

Because they couldn't handle the story the way it was. The women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they experienced. 

Doesn't make for a very good way to communicate a miraculous resurrection, does it?

(May 14, 2015 at 5:54 pm)polar bear Wrote: simply put to this point.  If I have the original Superman 1. comic book, it IS the most accurate comic book.  What you have proved is exactly the same thing.

Having Superman #1 is helpful if you need to compare subsequent issues to the storyline it contains. If DC said that Superman was from Krypton in #1 and from a different planet is a later issue, then you know there is a problem.

But suppose that you made hand-drawn copies of #1 for all of your friends just before losing your original #1 in tragic bird cage lining accident...You would still be able to know with certainty that Superman is from Krypton by checking those copies. etc, etc.

Quote:About the gospels, perhaps you will address this later.  All four are the accounts of jesus' life and death.  All of them "quote" jesus.  None of the "quotes" are the same as others.  Why didn't jesus/god write his own book of "quotes" it would have cleared up a lot of confusion...oh wait...it is in your best interest to keep your believers confused.

God did write His own book...you just don't like the method He used or the results He obtained.

Quote:By reading your OP I get the feeling you like to hear yourself talk.  Take a breath and ask yourself, do others like to hear you talk as much as YOU do?

Depends on the audience, I suppose.

Is there a way we can cut to the chase and you can present your evidence for your religious beliefs?

Compelling evidence that scales with the fanciful nature of your beliefs, which your own Bible suggests you should be able to present, include:

• A booming voice from the sky instructing me to listen to Jesus.
  
• You healing Steven Hawking so that he can walk and talk again.
  
• An angel speaking to people, breaking them out of jail, assassinating evil world leaders, etc.
  
• Curing someone's illness by casting out demons, a feat that you should be able to repeatedly demonstrate under medical peer review.
  
• Producing holy artifacts that actually have magical properties, such as Paul's handkerchiefs that could heal the sick. Said magical properties should be able to withstand academic peer review. 
  

Good luck. 

(May 14, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

Quote:Randy Carson


(And for the record, the Council of Trent formally established the longer version as the "correct" version, so clearly, SOMEBODY thought there was a good basis for doing so.)

Yes. 

Because they couldn't handle the story the way it was. The women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they experienced. 

Doesn't make for a very good way to communicate a miraculous resurrection, does it?

Hilarious. Like the Church was COMPLETELY UNAWARE of Matthew, Luke and John.

First, women were of no social standing in the culture of the day. They could NOT testify in a trial because their testimony was considered worthless.

So, why would the gospels contain the embarrassing account of women finding the empty tomb? If you're writing fiction, why not have Peter, James and John make the discovery? Why? Because Mark recorded the truth despite the fact that it would not be received well in his day and age. It's called the "criterion of embarrassment", and the gospels pass that test with flying colors.

Second, if the Church had chosen just one gospel to avoid having to deal with the "apparent" discrepancies, then you would be screaming about how the LACK of multiple attestation proved some grand conspiracy.

So, which is it? Do the apparent discrepancies in the four biographical accounts prove that the New Testament is false? Or does the fact that the Church included four testimonies - despite those discrepancies - provide multiple attestation?

You can't have it both ways.

(May 14, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 14, 2015 at 3:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So on the one hand we have a world-class scholar...and on the other we have you.


Guess who wins?

Well, your "world-class" scholar had his silly "Telephone Game" analogy dismantled by yours truly, so I've got that going for me. 

From what I have seen I would not credit you with the ability to dismantle two Leg-o Blocks.

Quote:Textual reports of supernatural events are not valid evidence.

What?  Why I'm sure our illustrious "scholar" credits Suetonius' account of Vespasian's miraculous healings as well his his boy "jesus."

Quote:Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them,3 and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases.

Suetonius, Life of Vespasian - Chapter VII

You gotta admit....it's as believeable as any jesus bullshit.

(May 14, 2015 at 6:43 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Is there a way we can cut to the chase and you can present your evidence for your religious beliefs?

That's what I'm doing.

(May 14, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: That's what I'm doing.

Now would be a good time.