Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My problem is Vic is only using arguments from Christians, who omit certain facts they do not like. John 21 being added to the gospel of John around 200 AD or later, for example.
Other material was added far later.
Codex E13 was written circa 1400 CE. These are a collection of gospel fragments. This group is very important, because it proves John 7:53 to 8:11 is a later addition. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the Pericope of the Adulteress is overwhelming."
[emphasis mine]
The Pericope is where Jesus allegedly said "he who is without sin cast the first stone."
The story is a complete fabrication and was most likely added to the gospels to diffuse criticism of the papacy, because popes committed rapes, often in broad daylight before horrified on-lookers, frequented prostitutes, were married yet had mistresses, and engaged in homosexual acts and pedophilia.
I'm asking you to tell us who those NT scholars are that YOU are talking about.
I'm talking about the ones featured and quoted on pages like the one I provided you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
And using the gospels to prove the gospels is circular.
You're still not understanding. I'm not interested in arguing that "the gospels" are correct, or even altogether reliable. I'm interested in whatever facts might be taken from them. As a nonbeliever, I couldn't care less if the rest is bogus. It has nothing to do with the argument from the resurrection as presented by the likes of William Lane Craig.
Now as for the specific facts.
Quote:
It could be. According to Jewish practices, dead criminals were sometimes taken out at night and buried in unmarked graves, with no witnesses.
And the ones who did it also had a very convenient bout of amnesia when people started claiming Jesus had risen from the dead?
Quote:
Another practice was the criminal was put in a tomb reserved for criminals, where they quickly started to decompose.
Which would still leave a corpse, however partially decomposed (therefore not an empty tomb). I'm reluctant to believe that in three days it would be unrecognizable, but even if it were, there's a reason one of the primary naturalistic explanations was "Someone stole the body".
Quote:
And these are just two plausible alternatives (based on historical Jewish practices).
Except that neither of them are plausible, and neither of them have the explanatory scope of the resurrection hypothesis. That's the angle, you see. That these other explanations are inferior, not that they're provably false.
Quote:
And did you not stop to think? Grave robbery was a major crime. Yet we get nothing about any Roman investigation, including the arrest and questioning of any disciples. Nowhere in the 'history' of the early church is a Roman investigation mentioned.
It's a fair point, but the absence of recordings doesn't weigh as heavily as the presence of recordings, IMO.
It was just the Wikipedia page, quoting tons of scholars on tons of different points. There are even points on which there's a consensus, exceeding my more modest claim of "most scholars". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rical_elements
It was just the Wikipedia page, quoting tons of scholars on tons of different points. There are even points on which there's a consensus, exceeding my more modest claim of "most scholars". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rical_elements
I still don't get it. If you are arguing that Jesus was an itinerant rebel rabbi that went around preaching and gained a small following, who overstepped the mark, was executed and remained dead...then what is your point? Most atheists would be prepared to accept that as a possibility. I really don't understand what you are arguing for.
It was just the Wikipedia page, quoting tons of scholars on tons of different points. There are even points on which there's a consensus, exceeding my more modest claim of "most scholars". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rical_elements
It was just the Wikipedia page, quoting tons of scholars on tons of different points. There are even points on which there's a consensus, exceeding my more modest claim of "most scholars". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rical_elements
Ho convenient that you missed major sections of that page that dealt with:
Bias
Lack of methodological soundness
Scarcity of sources, and
Myth theory
Not to mention the sentence: "Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate".
I still don't get it. If you are arguing that Jesus was an itinerant rebel rabbi that went around preaching and gained a small following, who overstepped the mark, was executed and remained dead...then what is your point?
"Remained dead" is something neither I nor the historians are talking about. Nor am I arguing that Jesus was resurrected. Someone asked for confirmation that there was consensus on various facts in the gospels, so that's what I provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Most of them are theologians.
And some of them are atheists (I mentioned Bart Ehrman earlier). Both groups are highly likely to study the material, albeit for very different reasons. But we can't just assume bias, either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Ho convenient that you missed major sections of that page that dealt with:
Bias
Lack of methodological soundness
Scarcity of sources, and
Myth theory
I didn't "miss" these sections, I just went to what the majority of scholars agree on because that's what was asked of me to find.
Quote:
Not to mention the sentence: "Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate".
If I'da quoted the page, I would've probably included this, because it both confirms what I said but also shows that I'm not saying much else!
Seriously, the conspiracy theories among you guys make me laugh. If I were trying to conceal this stuff, I wouldn't have cited Wikipedia; I would've found a bunch of Christian websites instead. The entire point of me going there first was to briefly (or at least I thought it would be brief) summarize the current state of NT scholarship so we wouldn't get bogged down at the first hurdle. But alas...
"Remained dead" is something neither I nor the historians are talking about. Nor am I arguing that Jesus was resurrected. Someone asked for confirmation that there was consensus on various facts in the gospels, so that's what I provided.
And some of them are atheists (I mentioned Bart Ehrman earlier). Both groups are highly likely to study the material, albeit for very different reasons. But we can't just assume bias, either way.
I didn't "miss" these sections, I just went to what the majority of scholars agree on because that's what was asked of me to find.
If I'da quoted the page, I would've probably included this, because it both confirms what I said but also shows that I'm not saying much else!
Seriously, the conspiracy theories among you guys make me laugh. If I were trying to conceal this stuff, I wouldn't have cited Wikipedia; I would've found a bunch of Christian websites instead. The entire point of me going there first was to briefly (or at least I thought it would be brief) summarize the current state of NT scholarship so we wouldn't get bogged down at the first hurdle. But alas...
You can dress it up all you like, but to me you misrepresented the article we're talking about.
You can dress it up all you like, but to me you misrepresented the article we're talking about.
How so? I just went back and read the conversation again. Rafius admitted to penalizing the gospels, calling them unreliable, and that's when I said "How do you figure? Because they contain what the majority of NT scholars consider historical facts." and I gave the link. To which you replied by calling me dishonest (for some reason).
And I still don't get how we can say broadly "The gospels are unreliable" when they contain historical information. It's misleading (kind of ironic, since I'm the one on trial for misrepresentation but nevermind), because it suggests we can safely disregard everything in the gospels when that is clearly not true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
