Yes, I admitted I could be wrong about absolutely everything. It doesn't however mean I update my beliefs every time someone tells me to. They have to provide a good reason. Pointing at the same book, or a particular part of that book, which I've been well aware of my whole life does not constitute a good reason. I've given you every opportunity to convince me, giving you every concession I could reasonably make and I'm afraid you have come up short.

I don't have preconceptions, I simply have the same scepticism as I'd apply to any supernatural God account, as would you if it wasn't your own holy book. I have no agenda or vested interest in continuing to believe it's not true, because I don't care if it's true. That lends me quite a lot of objectivity.

This bozo is the kind of nut that I suspect Robert G. Ingersoll was addressing when he said:

Quote:We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)

I guess the Holy Spirit that is in me (utterly unfounded assertion) has failed miserably to convince me. I expect christianity will blame me for that, for being so evil that I refuse to acknowledge it. But like I said, even if I've got Jesus in my arse hole, I don't care if it's true as it won't affect me one bit. If I really thought Christianity was true, or even slightly true, I'd be happy to say so as it makes no odds to me.

The Holy Spirit not doing such a good job with all those Muslims and other religious theists huh?

You and I are near identical in our theistic beliefs, Randy. We both reject every other religion, including the infinite number that could possibly be founded based on an infinity of other possible gods. I just go one more and reject yours for exactly the same reasons you reject all the others. Is that so hard to believe? Everyone thinks their religion is the special case, and none can demonstrate it to someone who doesn't already believe in it. It's nothing personal against you or your religion. I just apply my scepticism consistently.

(June 2, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 9:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm guessing you didn't read the OP very carefully - or my follow-up regarding the traditional authorship.  

You would be guessing wrong.  Even most Christian scholars have long since admitted the the traditional authorship has no basis in fact.  Your posts have not been remotely persuasive as the to authorship of the gospels.

Prove it. You must have a source for this, right? Cause you wouldn't simply assert such a thing because it fits with your presuppositions, right?

Quote:But and I repeat what ought to be obvious to you is that eyewitness testimony "is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers."

And I repeat that there are solid reasons why your cherished belief that Christianity is based upon "stories...recorded thirty years later...by many, many anonymous tellers" is simply crap.

But you can't let that go, because if you consider the alternative, your whole world changes.

As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.

Enjoy it while you can?

We're into emotional manipulation now, huh?

Move to 9:25 for Don Baker's take on apologetics. He minces it up real nice.

The three pillars of apologetics: lies, logical fallacies and emotional manipulation.

http://youtu.be/ng2VFfb-4gA

Quote:Prove it. You must have a source for this, right? Cause you wouldn't simply assert such a thing because it fits with your presuppositions, right?

Quote:A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided
by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation
of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise
they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable
contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
fi rst five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John did not write the Gospels.


Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, Pg. 5

Everyone seems to know but you.  No wonder catholics come across as stupid.

(June 3, 2015 at 2:14 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, I admitted I could be wrong about absolutely everything. It doesn't however mean I update my beliefs every time someone tells me to. They have to provide a good reason. Pointing at the same book, or a particular part of that book, which I've been well aware of my whole life does not constitute a good reason. I've given you every opportunity to convince me, giving you every concession I could reasonably make and I'm afraid you have come up short.

I don't have preconceptions, I simply have the same scepticism as I'd apply to any supernatural God account, as would you if it wasn't your own holy book. I have no agenda or vested interest in continuing to believe it's not true, because I don't care if it's true. That lends me quite a lot of objectivity.

I am reasonably sure you realize this already, but your approach on whether to change your beliefs or not is what I had in mind.  You should have a good reason to change your mind.  Just picking something at random to trust, to change from whatever you believe now, would not be a method likely to get one more accurate beliefs than whatever one already has.

The idea that believing Luke would be a good idea is really funny.  You would have to have amazingly crazy beliefs for Luke to be an improvement over whatever you believe right now.  The kind of beliefs that, if you went around telling others about them, you would likely end up in a mental institution.

I suppose that there is one great advantage to changing to believing Luke, and that is, you will remove all doubt about the accuracy of your beliefs.

Oh yes, I know you didn't mean it that way Randy was trying to use it as ammunition so I was putting him straight.

Open minded does not mean gullible.

Maybe Randy should read Lord of the Rings over and over until he believes it is real?

(June 3, 2015 at 11:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You would be guessing wrong.  Even most Christian scholars have long since admitted the the traditional authorship has no basis in fact.  Your posts have not been remotely persuasive as the to authorship of the gospels.

Prove it. You must have a source for this, right? Cause you wouldn't simply assert such a thing because it fits with your presuppositions, right?  

Quote:But and I repeat what ought to be obvious to you is that eyewitness testimony "is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers."

And I repeat that there are solid reasons why your cherished belief that Christianity is based upon "stories...recorded thirty years later...by many, many anonymous tellers" is simply crap.

But you can't let that go, because if you consider the alternative, your whole world changes.

As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.

Citations?

There's bland old Wikipedia which does a fair summary of the historical scholarship:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Quote:Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion

Concerning the first gospel written:

Quote:Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70

So 40 years after the crucifiction (give or take) by someone who is a child of a convert.


How about Mathew?

Quote:Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria.[77] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.[78] While Matthew arranged this material into compilations, such as the Sermon on the Mount, much of the material goes back to the historical Jesus.[79] According to E. P. Sanders, the infancy narrative is an invention.[80] Matthew presents Jesus' ministry as limited to the Jews, though the resurrected Jesus later commissions the disciples to preach to all the world. Geza Vermes judges that the ministry of Jesus was exclusively for Jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early Christian development.[81]

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[78] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[78] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[82]

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.

Luke:

Quote:Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine.[87] Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.[88] Luke also includes a large amount of unique material, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, and many of these parables seem to be authentic.[89] Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' mission and message,[90] but Geza Vermes concludes that this theme is not authentic to the historical Jesus.[91] As is the case with Matthew, much controversy has surrounded the Lukan birth narrative.[80]

Some scholars[92][93] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[94]

As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to as late as 90 AD.[95][96][97] Donald Guthrie argues, however, that Acts was written in the early 60s AD (since the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), and therefore the Gospel of Luke would have to have been written prior to that, around AD 60.[/url]

John:

Quote:John was likely composed at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity#Anatolia]Ephesus, though other possibilities are Antioch, Palestine and Alexandria.[103] Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[104] whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.[105]

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[106][107] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[108] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[109][110] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[111]
Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[54][112]

I've left the hotlinks in the footnote live, so you can see what the text is based on.

(June 3, 2015 at 11:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote: As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.

I quite enjoy possessing a mind open to knowledge of the truth as adherence to rational principles surveying the evidence guides me to it. It's sad that you would rather revel in confusion over silly and vain stories that you willfully mistake for reality. Oh well. It's your life.