Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels
|
Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels
|
 (March 13, 2014 at 11:44 am)Deidre32 Wrote: Yes, that might be fun. U stop it right now... 
 (March 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm)discipulus Wrote:(March 13, 2014 at 11:44 am)Deidre32 Wrote: Yes, that might be fun. If u build it, they will come. 
 (March 13, 2014 at 10:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: It never was an argument against Christianity, merely against the inerrancy of the bible. This is very true and very important to remember. Christianity can be teachings of Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, or it can be Coptic ritual or gnostic secrets. For many Christians these doctrines have more importance than the literal truth of any particular story in the bible. (Consider the doctrine of the trinity which is disputed but also central to many Christians. It is at best unclear if the bible supports the doctrine of the trinity) Having grown up ELCA Lutheran in a church that didn't say the bible was infallible or that it's authors had any superior access to god than anybody else I can say it effectively teaches a soft atheism because the a church that is up front about the fact it does not have a superior moral authority because there are errors in its mythology loses most of the power that makes religion work.
Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. - F. Nietzche
 
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Great username Really?
I think the doubt makes the faith stronger. If that's soft atheism I'm all for it.  (March 14, 2014 at 1:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Great username Really? Nothing inherently dangerous in that rationale or anything.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
 (March 13, 2014 at 3:06 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"Well, no you're incorrect. Historians look at ancient texts and ponder upon what the original wording might have been as well as what the author is witnessing and when he wrote the original, etc. With NT Biblical studies the first part is made much easier as there is little textual difference between the early and reliable manuscripts of the books themselves. Some of the events appear in multiple books of the Bible - written down and recorded separately - and Biblical Scholars are very interested in these as it gives them as close to absolute certainty on certain events as is possible. You only get this for some of the Bible of course, if you were to only keep the material that the most sceptical scholars are "certain of" then you'd have a very short Bible. So having the same event written down by more than one witness is a great thing. Witness statements never match 100% - ask any cop. The fact that Jesus stands trial before Pilate is considered very reliable by sceptical scholars (eg Ehram). Now, as you said the witnesses could potentially be writing about an event unrelated to its apparent meaning. You can't prove a negative though, so it's a moot point. You can claim "until I see proof otherwise, this was a different Pilate and he was in a play", but that would hardly make you right - much less likely to be right. Generally speaking though, small disagreements like this are what historians look for to verify separate accounts and not a parroting of the same account.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke 
Kudos to the above.
Historians look for things like divergence in details and similitude in major events. This is what you expect to find if multiple people are writing accounts of a series of events. So actually instead of serving to discredit the gospels, incidents like the one in question serve only to substantiate it.  ![[Image: grumpy-cat-8141_preview_zps9177ab07.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-bP6k59dMHBI%2FUnQmzKaljjI%2FAAAAAAAAZUA%2F3ZDsMcXw4d0%2Fs400%2Fgrumpy-cat-8141_preview_zps9177ab07.png)
"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken." Sith code 
Has anybody had any keeping the brand anonymous Strawberry yogurt?
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe (March 14, 2014 at 4:07 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:(March 14, 2014 at 1:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Great username Really? Continual questioning of your ideas is always healthy I thought. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels
