On 30 Jun, 07:56, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:21:10 -0400, ogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Padraigh
>
> ProAmerica) wrote:
>
> =3D=3D>1) I reiterate: the early appearance of the written Gospels
(betwee=
n 50-
> =3D=3D>85 AD) is strong evidence AGAINST the storys being fantastic
fables=
..
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You obviously don't know what you're
talki=
ng about.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The earliest surviving complete copies
of =
the Gospels
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 date to the 4th century -- that's 400
year=
s AFTER
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jesus supposedly lived and died. =A0You
do=
n't have a
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 shred of evidence that any written
"gospel=
s" appeared
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 between 50 - 85 CE. =A0And even if some
di=
d, that would
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 not constitute evidence that they were
not=
mere
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 fables.
You are very ignorant. The earliest complete copies of most classical
texts date to the 9th century or later. Are you offering that as
evidence of date of composition?
You assert -- ignorantly -- that there is not a shred of evidence that
any written gospels (and why the quotes?) appeared between 50-80 AD.
But this is not a question for Christians to answer, since the
consensus of scholars is that they did, and this is based on the
contents of the historical record.
Finally you assert that even if everything you said was rubbish --
which it is -- this would not show that they were true. That is
correct; the same as for every do***ent you own.
> =3D=3D>There were still witnesses alive to the events recorded, and they
w=
ould
> =3D=3D>have spoken out if the stories were falsified.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 That's one of the silliest things I've
eve=
r read.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For one thing, almost everyone in
biblical=
times
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 was illiterate and couldn't write. =A0
You perhaps are not aware that Christians read their bible aloud.
> And how would anyone know whether anyone who lived
> then had "spoken out" about anything? =A0Tape recorders,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 as you know, didn't come along until
somew=
hat later.
Books did.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 And, all that aside, the argument that
som=
eone
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "would have" done this or that is not an
a=
rgument
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 at all, but childish speculation.
As someone arguing from lack of evidence, that is an argument you
cannot make.
> =3D=3D>2) The dating of the gospels, and the other boks of the New
Testame=
nt,
> =3D=3D>is boosted by literary analysis.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 No, they're not. =A0"Analysis" of
ancient =
writings by
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 latter-day academics may be intriguing,
bu=
t
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 certainly provides no credible evidence
of=
the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 veracity of what was written.
He didn't say it did. This was about the *date* of the text.
> =3D=3D>The language used, as well as the
> =3D=3D>locations and background, apply ONLY to the area around Jerusalem
c=
irca
> =3D=3D>30-35 AD.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Who can say, since the material in the
"go=
spels" was
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 translated and re-translated numerous
time=
s?
Perhaps you would explain who translated what from what into what,
numerous times? With evidence? Come, someone is pulling your leg.
The NT gospels were composed in Greek and are extant in Greek.
> =3D=3D>NO anachronisms have been found in even the oldest source
> =3D=3D>material (fragments of Matthew and John from late in the First
Cent=
ury
> =3D=3D>have been found).
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 As I pointed out, The earliest surviving
c=
omplete
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 copies of the Gospels date to the 4th
cent=
ury.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Only fragments and quotations exist
before=
that.
You are mistaken. Papyri of more or less complete gospels start to
appear from ca. 200 AD.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 One has to desperately WANT to believe,
to=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 claim that accounts that appeared 400
year=
s
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 after the events described bear anything
b=
ut
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the remotest resemblance to what
actually
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 occurred -- particularly when
descriptions=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 of those alleged events are to be found
no=
where
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 else.
The accounts did not appear 400 years later.
> =3D=3D>3) The letters of Paul (some of which predate =A0the Gospels)
form =
much of
> =3D=3D>the theological foundation of the faith. These letters had to be
wr=
itten
> =3D=3D>before Paul's death in Rome, circa 66 AD.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Or they were written much, much later,
and=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 simply (and apocryphally) called the
"lett=
ers of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Paul" by the real author(s).
By all means produce evidence for your claim. But I think you said
something about how pointless speculation was...?
> =3D=3D>4) There is indeed a mntion of Jesus inJosephus.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mention that is almost universally
regarde=
d by
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 scholars as a forgery.
Not these days.
> =3D=3D>PART of the mention is
> =3D=3D>questionable- a remark about His miracles and status as the true
So=
n of
> =3D=3D>God, but the first part of the statement is usualy accepted by
> =3D=3D>historians.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Absolutely wrong. =A0What is usually
accep=
ted by
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 historians is that the mention of Jesus
in=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Josephus'sTestimonium Flavianum, was
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 inserted later by Christian scholars who
w=
ished
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to manufacture "evidence" for Jesus's
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 existence. =A0
Produce any scholar who believe that the text appeared for such a
reason.
> =3D=3D>5) The mention in the Talmud is that a blasphemer named Jesus was
> =3D=3D>executed; he was the result of a rape of an innocent woman by a
Rom=
an
> =3D=3D>soldier.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 There is no scholarly consensus that the
J=
esus
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 mentioned in the Talmud is the Jesus of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Christianity. =A0
By all means produce the source for this statement.
> Jesus was a common name in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 those times. =A0And even if he was, that
i=
s
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 certainly not evidence for Jesus's
alleged=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 divinity.
Whoever said it was?
> =3D=3D>SOMETHING happened in Jeusalem in that period.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Many things happened in Jerusalem in
that
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 period.
It's probably best not to disagree BEFORE reading the argument.
>
> =3D=3D>SOMETHING convinced a
> =3D=3D>group of people to abandon families, friends and jobs to spread
the=
> =3D=3D>words of someone new.
> =3D=3D>SOMETHING gave them the strength to accept the
> =3D=3D>persecution they were sure to face.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fascinating how the persecuted of one
age =
so
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 readily become the persecutors of
another,=
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 isn't it?
Indeed so; and curious how those whose religion was the state policy
of the USSR and in whose name any amount of persecution was committed
seem so unwilling to take responsibility for it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
