The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
|
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
|
 (May 17, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Ah, but in this case, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the ruling body, asked for Jesus' body. Not wanting to create further conflict with the Jews, Pilate agreed to hand over the body. Oh yes, that would be it, seeing that they were appointed by the Romans and entirely dependent on them. ![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
 (May 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The Romans soldiers were professional killers, and there is NO WAY Jesus came down off the cross alive. Thanks but I think you missed my point with the context of Pliny's letters to Trajan. Pliny's basic tone was "who the fuck are these Christians?" It hardly lends itself to the theory that he really did survive and was seen by his followers. "The swoon theory" is only proposed by Christians as an "alternative" to the resurrection. Skeptics aren't interested in "theories" like this. It's not my job as a skeptic to explain anything to you. It's your job to prove what you believe. But thank you for the compliment. Maybe you can address some of my other posts that you've previously ignored?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too." ... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept "(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question" ... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist  RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 7:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 7:58 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 17, 2015 at 7:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Wrong again. Nice graphic but flawed since that is not the Catholic argument. Does the term "straw man" mean nothing to you? (May 17, 2015 at 7:41 pm)abaris Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Ah, but in this case, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the ruling body, asked for Jesus' body. Not wanting to create further conflict with the Jews, Pilate agreed to hand over the body. abaris- Have you EVER read the NT? Or a good book on Christian theology? Cause you're awfully ignorant of the facts. Quote:Matthew 27:11-24 You should read Luke 23 for a longer account of how Pilate tried to avoid executing Jesus. (May 17, 2015 at 7:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The Romans soldiers were professional killers, and there is NO WAY Jesus came down off the cross alive. Heh...Pliny's letter and the Emperor's replies suggest that news of the Christians had come to the attention of highest levels of the Roman government. So much for the Legend theory. As for the Swoon Theory being a Christian argument...yeah, we've been trying to explain away that whole resurrection thing for 2,000 years. It makes it so hard to win converts with THAT hanging over our heads. 
 (May 17, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nice graphic but flawed since that is not the Catholic argument. Then let's break some of that straw down.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 8:11 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 8:13 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 17, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nice graphic but flawed since that is not the Catholic argument. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. The Bible is inerrant. The Catholic Church is infallible. Now, something occurred to me a few minutes ago; namely, I've been arguing with you folks as if you were Protestants who either see the Bible as relevant or would if you understood it. But you're a god-less atheist (no offense intended), and thus, I can offer a full-throated Catholic argument without catering to the limitations that sola scriptura places upon non-Catholic Christians. Why does that matter? Well, your argument above, for example. I simply have to say that the Catholic Church is infallible, and that's the end of it. You won't believe me, of course, but you don't believe me even if I make my arguments from scripture. So, let's take off the gloves and give you the bare-knuckled truth (and you are just going to have kittens over this, Stimbo): "The [Catholic] position is this: there are two kinds of proofs for any dogma. The main proof, the most efficient in any way, the proof that is the real motive for every Catholic, is simply that this dogma is taught now by the Church of Christ, that Christ has given to his Church his own authority, so that we can trust the Church as we trust Christ himself. “Who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16). The argument is the same for every dogma (that is why the Catholic position is essentially simple, in spite of apparent complexity); it can be understood by the most ignorant, as the religion of Christ must be (it is impossible for every child and peasant to make up his own Christianity for himself by his interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers…). This position admits no vagaries of private judgment for each dogma. No variety of interpretation is possible as to what the Catholic Church of today teaches, or, if such misunderstanding should occur, the Church is there to declare her mind. Even the most fundamental dogmas rest ultimately on the teaching of the Catholic Church today, even, for instance, that of the Holy Trinity. All we suppose, before we come to the Church, is that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man sent by God and whom we must follow if we wish to serve God in the proper way; that he founded one visible Church, to which his followers should belong; that this Church is, as a matter of historic fact, the communion of Rome (not, however, supposing anything about the papacy, but supposing only visible unity and historic continuity). This much must be presupposed and therefore does not rest on the authority of the Church. All else does. "But there is another kind of argument for each dogma, taking each separately and proving that this was taught by Christ and has been believed from the beginning. This line of argument is neither so convincing nor so safe. It does now involve our private judgment as to whether the ancient texts do, or do not, really prove what we claim. It requires knowledge of the texts, of dead languages; to be efficient it requires considerable scholarship. It is impossible that our Lord should give us a religion requiring all this before you know what it is. This direct proof of each dogma can be only confirmation of the general argument for all, taken from the present teaching of the Church. But it is a most valuable confirmation, which we are always ready to offer, as long as it is understood that it is not the main reason of our belief. I am quite sure that Matthew 16:18 and the Church Fathers Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Chrysostom and Augustine all say what I believe about the Bishop of Rome. But I do not base my faith on what they say; I do not really care a jot whether convenire ad means “agree with” or “to go”. I base my faith on what the Catholic Church of today says. That alone is quite enough for all of us; in this we have an argument perfectly clear, convincing, final, the same for the student of patrology as for a peasant who can neither read nor write" (Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, [San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2008], 26-27).  Quote:1. Yes. You should be locked up for your own good.
Then the graphic is essentially correct.
And if you truly consider the RCC infallible, then I have no words.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
I do but I've already used most of them.
(May 17, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Then the graphic is essentially correct. Augustine “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation' 4:5 [A.D. 397]). RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 8:43 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 8:51 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Derail your thread..you offered it up? I just wanted to make sure that the text was, in fact, the bible. So....
Quote:The Bible is truth because it is inspired, and we can know that it is inspired because and infallible Catholic Church says so, and we know that the Catholic Church is infallible NOT because an inspired text so but because....wait for it, wait for it....the bible says so. (insert your argument from scripture here) The obvious question...I have to ask, if you know that the church is infallible because the bible says so...how do you know that the bible is true?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
![[Image: 2KYXQ.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2F2KYXQ.jpg)
