Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 28, 2015 at 3:15 pm (This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 3:16 pm by downbeatplumb.)
(January 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: REgarding dating. Here is excerpt from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Historicity. Even a 70 year old man might have seen Jesus and read the gospel of John.
Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus[31]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[32] c. 65–70.[33]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[32] c. 80–85.[33]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c. 80–85.[33]
John: c. 90–100,[33] c. 90–110,[34] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles and who, according to the ecclesiastical tradition transmitted by Eusebius, was put to death by the Romans shortly before AD 68,[35] nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church.[36]
Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Quote:In the Bronze and Iron Age LEB was 26 years
Quote:The most commonly used measure of life expectancy is life expectancy at age zero, that is, at birth (LEB), which can be defined in two ways: while cohort LEB is the mean length of life of an actual birth cohort (all individuals born a given year) and can be computed only for cohorts that were born many decades ago, so that all their members died, period LEB is the mean length of life of a hypothetical cohort assumed to be exposed since birth until death of all their members to the mortality rates observed at a given year
(January 28, 2015 at 3:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: If you want to study up on the census question in Luke, this guy makes a documented case for the apparent discrepancy. http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp
Try a better source, please. The tagline of that site is literally "Convincing Christianity".
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
SteveII, I'm still curious to know why you don't apply your loose standards to evidence to writings outside your religious tradition. If the nonsense in the NT gets a pass from you, why not the miracle claims in the Quran, or the Gita, or the Book of Mormon? You don't get to say, "Well, that's all bullshit and false religion" because you've already thrown out any standard of rational discrimination that might be of use. Special pleading doesn't cut it around here. Save that shit for the rubes at your adult Sunday School lesson.
(January 28, 2015 at 3:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: If you want to study up on the census question in Luke, this guy makes a documented case for the apparent discrepancy. http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp
Gee, I wonder if a website which has a statement of beliefs affirming their presupposition that the bible is completely accurate, before they even start writing, might be biased in some way...
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(January 28, 2015 at 2:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding all the comments on my sources I listed. It was clear I was pointing out that even secular scholars believe that Jesus existed to short circuit the inevitable nonsense that Jesus was entirely imaginary. As you most certainly have heard before: most scholars agree that the baptism and Crucifixion really happened.
Reference: Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Hearsay evidence is still evidence. It is not allowed in court because it cannot be cross examined. The hearsay evidence could be 100% reliable or it could be 0% reliable. There is no one alive that could give us a percentage. What we do know if that those first century Christians believed the central tenets. They had better reasons and evidence than we do today. Is it irrational to believe the same as people who lived during the time of Christ? Oh wait!!! I know. We have learned recently that dead people don't come back to life and the first century Christians were not privy to this information. Now it all makes sense!
Regarding Bart Ehrmans selected quotes:
• "Paul, by the way, never says that Jesus declared himself to be divine.”
Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross
Need some more:
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 1:1-4
“God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.” Romans 1:9-10
“But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,” Galatians 1:15-16
“I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:11-12
• “the idea that Jesus rose on the 'third day' was originally a theological construct, not a historical piece of information.”
I Corithians 15: 1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
• “But one thing they all (i.e., E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, and many others) agree on: Jesus did not spend his ministry declaring himself to be divine.”
So Paul and the gospel writers made that part up. That's nonsense because absolutely none of Christianity make sense if Jesus was not God. Every one of the gospels make the claim. Oh, I know, it was part of the conspiracy.
You seemed to miss the point, and in the interim proved my point. You quoted Bart Ehrman's authority as a scholar, and then spent this entire post discrediting him. Nowhere did I say that Bart Ehrman is right. I said you quoted him on the thing you agree with him on without looking at his entire body of work. So, I ask again---what is the difference between the quote you quoted and the quotes I quoted?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
(January 28, 2015 at 2:42 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Right? Even if we take the most liberal timeframes of these gospels being written, we would still be doing the equivalent of trusting someone's parent's eyewitness accounts about James Dean's life, followers, and death 60 years ago---then making a religion out of it where every word of it is literal truth.
And without the ease of researching his life that one would have in the modern era. Most likely any writings about people who had been dead for decades would have been based on stories passed down orally and perhaps a few written pieces. In other words, the Gospel of James Dean would be written by someone who never saw any of his work and interviewed the sons and daughters of people who'd read a few articles about him.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
Quote:The most commonly used measure of life expectancy is life expectancy at age zero, that is, at birth (LEB), which can be defined in two ways: while cohort LEB is the mean length of life of an actual birth cohort (all individuals born a given year) and can be computed only for cohorts that were born many decades ago, so that all their members died, period LEB is the mean length of life of a hypothetical cohort assumed to be exposed since birth until death of all their members to the mortality rates observed at a given year
From the same article, if someone lived to age 10, then the average increased to 45-47. That means for every age 10-20 death, people were living 70 to 80 years.
