Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[DeistPaladin]

Well just a second ago you claimed that 1/2 of Paul's epistles are dubious - who's fringy now?

Really? You're going to reply with the tu quoque/red herring combo? You're not going to defend your fringy beliefs that the dates of Gospel authorship can be pushed earlier than 50 CE but reply with "oh yeah, well, so are you on this different topic"?

Fine. We do know these sacred documents changed over time. We do know that interpolation was a problem with sacred documents. We do know that pseudo-epigraphy was a problem and even you admit that with the Pastoral Epistles. Since out debate on that subject is merely about the scale of the problem, I think I'm on solid ground. You, on the other hand, have only flimsy rationalizations to justify your ridiculous early dates of authorship (ala, "Gee, the story says... so it must be..." ).

No, it is not impossible.

When I said "the burden of proof is in your backyard", it's to suggest you need to do better than "nuh-uh-uh".

You have given no clear reason

How about the fact that Matthew cleans up Mark's theological fuck ups? Mark wouldn't have made these theological fuck ups if he'd been copying from Matthew.

and your appeal to my intellect

I'm starting to wonder about that strategy as well.

Almost all of Mark is found within Matthew, yet the same is not true with Luke.

Gee, why would that be? Perhaps it was because Matthew took Mark's Gospel and elaborated on it? And perhaps Luke just didn't copy Mark quite as much? Seems a pretty simple and straightforward explanation to me.

Proponents of the two-source hypothesis claim that Matthew "favoured" Mark and that Luke "favoured" Q.

Q...
is...
a...
hypothetical...
document.

...c. 60 AD and that's too late for Matthew. Matthew ...can not have been written later than c. 45 AD and most probably (if there was no Mark Gospel) you wouldn't date it later than 40 AD.

Well, you just go on believing that, then.

What? Spider-man never...

The point was you can't use the time frame of the story to suggest the story wasn't written later. Can you bring some real evidence to the table to justify your ridiculous and outlandish beliefs about the dates of Gospel publication?

It works to my advantage? LOL!

Yeah, the heterodox Christianities kind of work against the narrative of the "early church" pushed by Christian folklore.

No there really aren't, there just isn't concrete external proof, but there are not "numerous and glaring problems".

Well, we can go into them once you answer my question.

I can show you that most translations (except for instance for the KJV which is why you have KJO nutters) in their prefix make it explicit that no translation is perfect, no translation can exactly convert the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts into another language.

Are you done? OK, can you answer my question now? Can you name for me one (1) professional translation that lists "before" instead of "during" or "when" in the body of Luke 2:2?

In the same way, Greek has - and so does English for that matter - words with dual-meaning that can mean one thing or another in the correct context.

Right. And if the story describes a man on a mount of dirt throwing a ball toward a batter and catcher, a responsible translation from English to another language will use the word "pitch" that refers to the throwing of a ball and not a musical note or the setting up of a tent.

The words "before" and "during" convey two very different meanings. I don't speak Koine Greek but even if there was a word in that language that could have either meaning, there must be a contextual way of distinguishing the two, else the language would not be useful in communication.

Therefore, in translating Luke 2:2, we do not just shrug our shoulders and go with whichever word, "before" or "during", suits us better. "Luke" (or whoever the author was) intended either one or the other. One translation is right and the other is wrong. Our dilemma is determining which.

Now, if ALL of the thousands of scholars, each working independently, have all arrived at the same conclusion that "when" or "during" is the one that goes in the body, even if they footnote the "controversy" (and most don't even do that much), it seems to me like an overwhelming consensus among scholars that Luke intended to refer to the census "during" the administration of Quirinius. Why do you suppose they all arrived at the wrong conclusion on the fairly objective topic of language translation?

In the clear and certain context that Quirinius administered only one census and one only, the reading "first" is clearly nonsensical, and Luke has to be referring to an earlier census.

Interesting. What makes you say so and not that "first" refers to the first direct taxation of Judea, since Rome had only recently acquired direct control of the province and wouldn't have administered such a census while it was a client kingdom ruled by the Herodian family?

[Aractus]

Really? You're going to reply with the tu quoque/red herring combo? You're not going to defend your fringy beliefs that the dates of Gospel authorship can be pushed earlier than 50 CE but reply with "oh yeah, well, so are you on this different topic"?

Fine. We do know these sacred documents changed over time. We do know that interpolation was a problem with sacred documents. We do know that pseudo-epigraphy was a problem and even you admit that with the Pastoral Epistles. Since out debate on that subject is merely about the scale of the problem, I think I'm on solid ground. You, on the other hand, have only flimsy rationalizations to justify your ridiculous early dates of authorship (ala, "Gee, the story says... so it must be..." ).

No, once again you're trowing two things together from different places, and claiming they're the same.

As for "changed over time", that argument is dead and settled. You can't show me any instances of where a verse has been intentionally removed, can you?

Ehrman continually talks about Mark being written c. late 50's AD. All I'm proposing is a date that is 1 decade and a few years sooner, that's it. I'm not the only one - at all - who thinks this way. Just because "most" scholars date Mark c. 55-59 AD (and many even say 70 AD+) doesn't mean that all do, or that everyone has to agree, or that it is settled and closed for debate!

When I said "the burden of proof is in your backyard", it's to suggest you need to do better than "nuh-uh-uh".

Why? I'm not proposing that Matthew is written first, I'm simply stating that it is possible.

Q...
is...
a...
hypothetical...
document.

I know this....

Are you done? OK, can you answer my question now? Can you name for me one (1) professional translation that lists "before" instead of "during" or "when" in the body of Luke 2:2?

I already answered the question. It's not the translator's job to "fix" the Bible. They translate the way they feel is best, and they agree that the best way to read that sentence in the original Greek is "after"; however they also agree that "before" also makes sense.

The words "before" and "during" convey two very different meanings. I don't speak Koine Greek but even if there was a word in that language that could have either meaning, there must be a contextual way of distinguishing the two, else the language would not be useful in communication.

Yes the context was, as I've explained many times, that Luke's readers already knew which census he was talking about, so he uses a very brief reference to it and doesn't elaborate. If his readers didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, he would have elaborated further - ie "there was a census, one that less meaningful or important than the one under Quirinius ..."

Therefore, in translating Luke 2:2, we do not just shrug our shoulders and go with whichever word, "before" or "during", suits us better. "Luke" (or whoever the author was) intended either one or the other. One translation is right and the other is wrong. Our dilemma is determining which.

No you're wrong. A translation isn't "wrong" because it doesn't convey what the author intended, so long as it does convey as best as can be done what is written. It's not a translator's job to work out exactly what Luke was thinking and intending with each stroke of the pen - such an exercise involves guesswork and assumption, and leads down the path to lunacy! Yes they can employ this theory modestly here and there, but not when the writer is including throw-away comments that are brief and employ the clear assumption that the reader (or rather listeners) needed need too much detail.

If you want an internal argument, consider Acts 5:37, which refers to the census under Quirinius (you can go and check that scholars agree with this), notice the completely different language used to refer to it?

At the end of the day you have Luke referring to two separate census's, and just because the text of Luke 2:2 reads a certain way organically, doesn't mean that he had to have erred or that I don't have good reason to trust the accuracy of Luke. If this was all we had to go one for his accuracy it wouldn't look too favourable for him, however Luke mentions many names and places that both Matthew and Mark omit making it far more difficult to conger up a convincing forgery that would withstand modern scrutiny, and yet those names and places have been found to be accurate, they're externally corroborated.

So I'm perfectly comfortable having a few of these ambiguous parts here and there, that really remain "unsolved". If you believe he erred based on this one single verse, and then you're willing to distrust the bulk of both of his works, then that's what you believe and you've set up impossible conditions to change your mind.

Interesting. What makes you say so and not that "first" refers to the first direct taxation of Judea, since Rome had only recently acquired direct control of the province and wouldn't have administered such a census while it was a client kingdom ruled by the Herodian family?

As I said, Luke 2:2 isn't "simply" solved, but it remains a nonsensical reading in the context that Quirinius administered one census and that was in 6AD ...

[Zen Badger]

Danny, after all this time, have you produced any actual evidence for jesus?

[Aractus]

Uh, yes, it's called the Bible Zen. It's what convinces even athiest scholars like Bart Ehrman to be convinced he was a real man ...

[Zen Badger]

Uh, yes, it's called the Bible Zen. It's what convinces even athiest scholars like Bart Ehrman to be convinced he was a real man ...

The bible is the claim, not the proof.

It's like saying that the Leyland sales brochure is evidence that the Morris Marina was a great car.

[Bob Kelso]

Danny, after all this time, have you produced any actual evidence for jesus?

Take another look Aractus, I bolded the important bit or you.

[Mstricky]

They are one and the same, different ways of expressing what happened. Besides the Romans were very efficient in their method of killing. Prove the apostles did not write the NT.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that the apostles, or eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, did write the New Testament.










Even the most conservative commentators acknowledge that we do not know for sure who wrote the four gospels. Nobody signed them and the authors never explained their connection to the subject matter. The headings "According to Matthew, According to Mark, etc.) were added decades later on the basis of traditions handed down by the Church Fathers.

We are reasonably sure that Paul wrote half of the epistles attributed to him. As for the others, like it or not, Ehrman is quite right that forgeries were common enough in the ancient world. Galen, the pre-eminent physician in 2nd century Rome, was outraged to find a book for sale under his name, which he had never written. Tertullian, a very early Church Father, records that a forger tried to pass off a third letter to the Corinthians. You have no way of knowing that a forger did not slip by Ephesians or 2 Thessalonians, which appear to differ in style and content from the other epistles. Anyway, what authority does Paul have as a witness? He saw Jesus in a vision? Do you accept all the "visions" which modern Pentecostals throw out?

However, on the dispute about crucifixion vs. hanging on a tree, I will side with the Christians. Although the NT is riddled with self-contradictions, this is not one of them. It is one of those silly, out-of-context references to the Old Testament which pop up in the NT. Matthew and Paul are especially fond of doing that.

In Galatians 2:20 Paul says "I have been crucified with Christ" but then in the next chapter he says "But by becoming a curse for us Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings; for the scripture says, 'Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.'" (Gal. 3:13) which is a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23. In Paul's mind crucifixion and hanging on a tree are equivalent so that he can see the crucifixion as foreshadowed in the OT.

I see

[MitchBenn]

Uh, yes, it's called the Bible Zen. It's what convinces even athiest scholars like Bart Ehrman to be convinced he was a real man ...

The Bible isn't evidence of anything except the fact that somebody wrote a book called The Bible.

[DeistPaladin]

No, once again you're trowing two things together from different places, and claiming they're the same.

In what way?

As for "changed over time", that argument is dead and settled. You can't show me any instances of where a verse has been intentionally removed, can you?

I can show you that the entire ending for Mark (after 16:8) was added at a later time. Jesus' famous "cast the first stone" story was a later addition. These are changes that are not in dispute.

All I'm proposing is a date that is 1 decade and a few years sooner, that's it.

And that's what makes you fringy.

Why? I'm not proposing that Matthew is written first, I'm simply stating that it is possible.

How is it possible? Be sure to address the theological fuck-ups of Mark that Matthew corrects and how and why Mark would have ignored these corrections in your answer.

I already answered the question. It's not the translator's job to "fix" the Bible. They translate the way they feel is best, and they agree that the best way to read that sentence in the original Greek is "after"; however they also agree that "before" also makes sense.

No. "before" and "during" are two very different words, just like "yes" and "no" are two different words. At least one of those two translations must be wrong. Otherwise, Koine Greek must have been a useless means of communication.

Yes the context was, as I've explained many times, that Luke's readers already knew which census he was talking about, so he uses a very brief reference to it and doesn't elaborate.

There could have been no earlier census in Judea. That province was under Herodian, not Roman, control. Rome didn't take direct control of that province until 6 CE after Herod Archelaus was deposed.

If you want an internal argument, consider Acts 5:37, which refers to the census under Quirinius (you can go and check that scholars agree with this), notice the completely different language used to refer to it?

Of no consequence since a different author wrote Acts.

[T.J.]

I'm going to have to subtract points from the video for insulting atheists at the beginning. The radio host isn't a very good debater here. The bible is an unreliable and biased source and using it as proof of anything is absurd. It's like saying Solid Snake is a real person because Metal Gear Solid says so.