Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

You still have some way to go on that quote thing. Maybe you have some hanging "+quote" in your cache? I avoid that button "like the plague"!!

I'll look. Hahaha, it seems to look ok from my end.

Not a major difference, but a difference. I wouldn't say it "tells a very, very different story". It may have a different political charge to it, though.

Here's some more stuff:
The crucifixion takes place in Rome, not Jerusalem.
Joseph of Arimathea is said to be a personal friend of Pontius Pilate.
Jesus is “taken up” from the cross, and His death is not mentioned.
Two supernatural beings enter the tomb, and three emerge.
The cross is described as floating out of the tomb and saying “Yes” to a voice from heaven.
There is no mention of witnesses seeing Jesus alive after He was dragged out of the tomb.

Also, no one but no one thinks it's authentic. This would fall under scholarly consensus: believers and unbelievers alike think this is a forgery. I don't think you're advocating its authenticity, though.

I never said it was a clerical conspiracy, did I? I said that one version of events became dominant. Why, how and where it became dominant are very important questions for which we may never have decent answers.
One can offer some educated guesses, though. Here's mine:
Paul of Tarsus, present day Turkey, returns from his travels in Israel and starts preaching his version of Christianity. That version appeals to the poor and downtrodden and so it grows in popularity among the lower classes - in the region that would become called Eastern Roman Empire, mostly present-day Turkey and Greece. With all the commerce going on around the Mediterranean, these popular ideas were passed to other shores, such as Corinth (Greece), Thessalonica (Greece), Colossae (Turkey), Ephesus (Greece), Galatia (Turkey), and Rome... See the pattern? ... I see the absence of the place of origin of the story.
With the region of Rome, Greece and Turkey littered with Paul's version of Christianity, the clergy that follow Christianity in this region will obviously follow Paul's version.  They became numerous and influential up to the point when even the emperor, Constantine, is himself Christian a mere 200-ish years later.
"Oh, but there were eye-witnesses from Jerusalem at the same time", you may say, "those could disprove Paul's version easily, but didn't, proving that this was an accurate account". But those people would have been in the wrong place, so they would have had little to no say in it. And before you say it, they'd also be too old to be traveling and disputing anything.

This is where I get most hung up. What about this theory is provable? You're looking back through time and telling me what people 2000 years ago thought without producing evidence, like a letters between Christians that affirm what you're saying. Why would I agree to this over just accepting what's written in the Bible? And I mean that as a real question, not a rhetorical challenge.

The gospels and others texts that were in line with Paul's already dominant version would then be incorporated into canon. The texts that weren't in line with it, were discarded as apocryphal. And the rest, is history.

So you now believe something that may or may very well not be an accurate account of events.
That the collection in the bible gives you texts that agree with each other is merely by construct, not because those were the only stories circulating, nor that they were the more accurate portrayals of what really happened.

There is so many assumptions weaved into what you say. This is the most cynical, skeptical, biased way to look at the development of the NT canon.

First, you and I have the benefit of 2000 years of study and debate to rely on. These people didn't. They were hashing out the fundamental truths that we take for granted. And there was a real attack on the church happening. Persecution by the state, theological perversion by the Gnostics, and opportunists profiting off of the early church were all real obstacles. You had people leaving pagan religions trying to reconcile their lives in light of Christ. There was a lot happening and the foundational beliefs had to be defended.

Second, you're painting a conspiracy here that texts were rejected purely for not agreeing with Paul. I reject the idea of Pauline Christianity. That's not an accurate way to say it. Paul didn't hijack Christianity. That's just not true. I can harmonize Paul, Peter, John, James, and the rest of the NT scholars no problem. In fact, the apostles were all working together. Peter references Paul. Luke talks about Paul. Paul references other apostles. This idea that Paul just happened to have the message that stuck is just simply not true. It's unfounded. His ministry was foundational to the church's growth, but he didn't hijack Christianity.

Third, I also reject this idea of Pauline Christianity as the canon dividing line. That's just not true. Yes, the message in the other writings was important, as was their theology, authorship, and authenticity. The exact same way any historian today would try to determine the truth an account of a historical event. He has to weigh all of those things to determine if an account is reliable. That's not odd or conspiratorial.

Fourth, because of the way that the NT was spread through multiple lines of independent transmission the idea that there was a governing body that decided what Christians could read was just not true. The canon of scripture was already being organically collected. By the mid 2nd century 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered the core writings, way before Laodicea.

This is secular scholarship 101 and it's not based on any evidence that Christian scholarship isn't looking at. There are two ways to view the same information. Worldview matters.

I see how it comes about. It makes total sense.
As with all logical arguments that result in the wrong conclusion, it fails at the start. But you do you.

Well, you have yet to demonstrate that my initial claim is false... sooooooooo?
Oh, no. No, no, no. Haha. I don't accept an atheist's appeal to logic. We don't have to hash that out, but I also won't just let you start appealing to transcendent, immaterial standards of truth. You don't get to appeal to logic unless you can justify it.

Let's not go there. I've spent way too much time with Statler Waldorf debating stupid tiny details.

An exercise in futility lol

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not even a god of the gaps in context - just a personal failure of ayosts. The universe, logic, nature, math..morality....these aren't actually things that anyone is in the dark about. He may think that other peoples explanations are wrong..but wouldn't it be hilarious if the whole world had been stumbling around in the dark to explain why it's bad to curbstomp your neighbors kid..and...somehow, the real answer to that question is "because christ".

[ayost]

...you're just an asshole.

Says the man who is nothing but rude, insulting, and condescending.
But, hey, I guess in your worldview who cares? I'm just evolved protoplasm. You don't chastise chickens for being assholes, do you? I'm just being the animal I evolved to be. From your worldview that just doesn't hurt.

It's the same tired song from you as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet another demonstration of passive aggressive nonsense. Boo hoo, I'm just soooo mean.

Meanwhile, we're left wondering whether you truly believe that other people either

A - are completely unable to explain whatever moral system they hold to
or
B - have no moral system whatsoever, cuz protoplasm.

[ayost]

It's not even a god of the gaps in context - just a personal failure of ayosts.  The universe, logic, nature, math..morality....these aren't actually things that anyone is in the dark about.  He may think that other peoples explanations are wrong..but wouldn't it be hilarious if the whole world had been stumbling around in the dark to explain why it's bad to curbstomp your neighbors kid..and...somehow, the real answer to that question is "because christ".

You're right, there's no one questioning the universe, logic, nature, math, or morality. There's no questions of origins. There's no philosophy of math. There's no epistemology. Everyone always agrees on morality. There aren't thousands of years of people questioning everything in your list. All of mankind sits in perfect harmony on all of these topics because they are so self evident who would question them. That's perhaps your most astute observation (except for when you called me an asshole). The reality is you assume all of these things without justification, which, to be honest, is the opposite of what sophisticated thinkers do.

---

Yet another demonstration of passive aggressive nonsense.  Boo hoo, I'm just soooo mean.  

Meanwhile, we're left wondering whether you truly believe that other people either

A - are completely unable to explain whatever moral system they hold to
or
B - have no moral system whatsoever, cuz protoplasm.

You don't hurt my feelings. From your worldview it doesn't matter. You can't say anything that has meaning so it doesn't hurt.

I'm sure you can explain your moral system, just not justify it. I'm also sure it will bounce around like flubber when I start to challenge it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do I? Strange. It's a good thing you came along to tell me what I think. I'd have never known otherwise.

From your response above, you appear to understand perfectly well why your stated view is self referentially false. You see thousands of years worth of explanations, and competing explanations. It's almost as if people do have moral systems and explanations for their moral systems. It's almost as if "because christ" isn't an answer to the question of why or whether it's wrong to curbstomp the neighbors kid..but fuck me if you could think of any reason besides that, eh? Obviously, if you're that ignorant, then other people must also be.



Get your shit together. Don't want people to treat you like a dumb asshole, stop putting in the work.

[arewethereyet]

Wait - chickens are mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

They can be, yeah. Mostly to each other. Pecking orders are real. They're very social animals.

[ayost]

Let's explore this statement. What about Jesus life, death, and resurrection?

Evidence for:
First, I know that definitively ascribing authorship of the Gospels to certain authors is difficult and not indisputable proof. I know there are two sides of this argument. I know they were written anonymously. I know Church tradition on authorship can't be proven as existing before in the second century, but, there is no external evidence either supporting or denying authorship. I know the gospels are the only source for information about Jesus aside from a few potential external sources that give almost no information.

That being said, we do know that church tradition for the NT authors named has always been the tradition of the church as far back as we can know. There is evidence that they were written prior to 70 AD, except John, which was probably before 100 AD, since none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem and Luke ends with Paul on house arrest). We also have fragments dating to 130 AD and a potential fragment of Mark dating to prior to 68 AD.

Ultimately, the arguments against aren't more concrete or compelling than the arguments for the authenticity of the New Testament. Now, I know I'm predisposed to believe church tradition, but in light of the fact that there is no indisputable, external evidence for the NT writings to be anything other than what they claim to be, I choose to believe they are, in fact, authentic.

People love to point out that the Bible was written by multiple authors. Yes, it was. That , means we actually have 4 independent lines of testimony about Jesus life. To me, we have the testimony of 4 contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses to at least parts of Jesus life. Luke admits to researching Jesus and writing his gospel 9no different than a biographical author today). The events they recount are very similar and very consistent. They are also different. But if 4 people recount the life of 1 man it only makes sense that they highlight what was important to them and their intended audience. These authors tell a consistent story that I can't prove happened like WWII footage, but there is evidence. Jesus is mentioned extra-biblically by Josephus (I know some of the Jesus writings attributed to him are potentially false, but not all of them). Obviously, someone existed and something happened. My goodness, He changed the world. The only real testimony we have are the Gospels and then tell an amazing story of God entering into His creation in order to save a particular people from destruction. Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

Now, is that irrefutable proof that God exists and has acted in this world? I would say no, I'll grant that. But, denial that is based on skepticism and internal critiques I don't find very compelling.

You said zero evidence. If the gospels are reliable and the author's telling the truth then Jesus did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That would be evidence. Not irrefutable proof, but evidence. Zero evidence is a hard claim to substantiate.

In light of what I said, I don't think belief in the NT is crazy. Is it?

I'm not saying you are crazy.  I once believed in it as well.  But, if you are a bible believer, you must believe in 100% of the bible, or else admit that some of it is just people's opinion and belief, rather than "Truth".

In my religious journey, I tried to believe the whole thing.  That lasted only a short time.  I read and studied the entire bible.  The god of the OT is not the same god as the NT - not even close.  I also realized that the story of Mankind's fall, and redemption made no sense, especially in light of archaeology, history, cosmology, and evolutionary theory.

I became a "mainstream" Christian, accepting that maybe Jesus provided some method by which we could connect better with God, but realizing the limitations of all biblical text.

Even that came crumbling down about 10 years ago, partly from debating with others in forums like this, and partly from realizing that no gods do anything, ever.  The claims of God answering prayer is a testable scientific claim.  It has never been shown to be true, despite an absolute promise that from the bible that it would occur.

The universe doesn't need a god to operate -- in fact one would simply mess things up.  Morality doesn't need to god in order to exist (in fact, god-imposed morality makes actual moral choice impossible).  I don't need to pretend to talk to a god to get through my day (though if I did, I'd choose a far nicer one that in the bible).

Actually you guys started asking questions right after I said that, which I appreciate.

[arewethereyet]

Oh - I remember quite liking my grandma's chickens when she would let me gather eggs with her...other than the smell anyway.