Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

[quote="Carlin"] Gilbert1908 wrote: Carlin wrote: JDHURF wrote: John wrote: The so-called " The gospels were at best second hand accounts based on oral tradition, and we all know how reliable oral tradition is (the children’s game “telephones” testifies to this)

That's great. I've always said that the children's game "Telephone" systematically proves there is no God (or at least that religion cannot be real).

Great posts, you guys. JDHURF must be like the Michael Jordan of the religion forum; elevating the skills of everyone around him. Even for some who are usually the Terrel Ownens.

If oral history has no place in the history of ANYTHING, then you can kiss good bye to most of HISTORY.

I don't think oral history is the most accurate, no. However, a lot of our history is well documented. You should ask yourself why nothing so astonishing like angels appearing or God speaking from a burning bush have not been accounted for since we've been able to document them?

You know as well as I do that there is no sincereity within your question.

If you do not believe the Gospels, why would you believe that the Children of Fatima, the Novice of Akita, St. Faustina or the many other such incidents that take all the time?

There have been many many such visions, apparitions etc. over time some easily explainable, some the delusions of the mentally unbalanced and some which confirm a faith you do not share. People like you don't believe any of them, people like me don't believe MOST of them.

[cap'n queasy]

Well, for one thing Y'shua told us the only sign an evil and adulterous people who crave a sign would get only His death and resurrection for their sign. (Matthew 12) He also warned us not to accept false signs. (Matthew 24).

We receive our grace because of faith. Not belief in signs.

[JDHURF]

wormwood wrote: Even if written much later, the gospels all agree on one important point. I think this:…………is an unfair assessment. First one is a game played by Children, the other, was a tradition that could cost you your life. Early Christians were mostly Jewish. The Jews had a very extensive oral tradition that accompanied the Torah. It was called the spoken Torah, or oral tradition and it remained in tact across the world over many centuries before the Talmud was written. I think they could keep a story in tact just a little over 30 years.
I agree that the children’s game I mention and the oral tradition can only be compared in the loosest of ways but there is no doubt that any oral tradition, no matter how strenuously kept, will be highly subject to convolution. My immediate question to you would be, if the oral traditions were oral and there isn’t any documentation until much later, how in the world can we be certain they never evolved?

I am on lunch break from work right now and cannot respond to the rest of your post, which I will do. It seems we may agree more than not with regards to this current line of inquiry.
Gilbert1908 wrote: You are aware that both Luke and John Mark (Mark) are contemporaries and proteges of Peter and Paul?
That is inaccurate. It is alleged that Mark may have based his gospel from the recollections of Peter, however, this is in serious doubt as many claim Mark based his gospels only on the oral tradition. Furthermore no one knows who John was, many consider John’s gospel anonymous.
Gilbert1908 wrote: I am always interested to see that while the EXACTNESS of nothing else can be established by nonbelievers, most especially the contents of the Gospels, allegorical I believe you described them, it is by the interpretation of these very same contents, which are otherwise untrustworthy, which the dating of the text can apparently be determined without a shadow of a doubt.
I don’t even know what you’re going on about. No one, least of all myself, has claimed any of these dates are accurate “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” however, looking towards the biblical scholars whose life is dedicated to researching these issues there is a general consensus, based on criteria both internal and external to the gospels themselves, as to what the likeliest dates are.
Gilbert1908 wrote: Since Luke and Mark are contemporary and indeed proteges to Paul, Peter and the other Apostles of that time, and we have no way to know if they kept notes or had previous drafts of each of their Gospels what is the meaning and relevance of the "gap" you feel is so important? There is no gap in the lives and associations they have with each other just in our ability to date the documents which they authored.

Actually Luke drew from the gospel of Mark and the oral tradition, there is no evidence to suggest Luke had any connection to Peter. In fact Luke states in his gospel, 1:1-2, that his account has been handed down through the oral tradition:

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”.

The relevance of the gap in recorded Christian history is that the story of the life and times of Jesus was kept alive and spread via oral tradition and that during this time it is very likely that while the story of Jesus was spreading it began to accumulate the characteristics of the common mythologies of the time. It is not a stretch of the imagination to conclude that the oral tradition of Christianity gave birth to a greatly exaggerated, added upon and altered story – the gospels were written between thirty and fifty years after the alleged death of Jesus, plenty of time for the evolution thereof – it is really almost impossible to believe that the oral tradition kept perfectly intact the entire account of the stories later relayed in the gospels, which differ amongst even themselves.
wormwood wrote: They are supposed to be God inspired...which means that God purposed to inspire exactly what He wanted us to have. The amount of skill or talent that the people who wrote it had is besides the point...because if it isn't inspired...it really doesn't matter either way.
What you are now speaking of is “faith” and nothing more, faith is not evidence or vindication of anything.
John wrote: Anyways…believe what you wanna believe Tupac. That’s on you.
There is no need to become upset and toss out Ad hominem’s, as ironic as this is coming from a lion.
John wrote: All I can say is that the Gospels have personally had an effect on me and my life.
Which serves as no proof whatsoever for the validity of the gospels.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

Jesus probably existed. But his story was probably warped, as is the case with many such figures.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

cap'n queasy wrote: Well, for one thing Y'shua told us the only sign an evil and adulterous people who crave a sign would get only His death and resurrection for their sign. (Matthew 12) He also warned us not to accept false signs. (Matthew 24).

We receive our grace because of faith. Not belief in signs.

Which is appropriate, since faith is all you have left.

[cap'n queasy]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Well, for one thing Y'shua told us the only sign an evil and adulterous people who crave a sign would get only His death and resurrection for their sign. (Matthew 12) He also warned us not to accept false signs. (Matthew 24).

We receive our grace because of faith. Not belief in signs.

Which is appropriate, since faith is all you have left.

It's all I need.

[John]

Quote: Which serves as no proof whatsoever for the validity of the gospels.


It's the best proof there is.

I know because God has instilled in me the faith to know that I know.

You have a problem with that. Ok. But remember.....thats your problem...not mine. I have my proof.


And my proof isn't going to be your proof.....as it shouldn't be anyway.

[wormwood]

Quote: I agree that the children’s game I mention and the oral tradition can only be compared in the loosest of ways but there is no doubt that any oral tradition, no matter how strenuously kept, will be highly subject to convolution. My immediate question to you would be, if the oral traditions were oral and there isn’t any documentation until much later, how in the world can we be certain they never evolved? Good question. The first part of the oral tradition that was written down was called the Mishnah (spelling?) around 200CE. The oral tradition was passed from the time the Tanakh was written, until 200CE, and was very much a part of any Rabbi's life. When the Mishnah was released, Rabbi's from the two branches of Judaism (Babylon and Jerusalem) wrote minor modifications, comentaries, and critiques of wording etc which became known as Gemara. The critiques do demonstrate minor difference, but they also show amazing consistency, especially when one considers time, distance, and circumstance. That was over thousands of years, in the case of Christianity, we are talking about 30-40 years. My point was, that given the particular people involved, namely the Jews, keeping the basic elements of a story alive for a few years would not be tricky. Whatever the case, it is interesting to consider that perhaps it was not written down on purpose. By that I mean, the oral tradition was intentionally not written down, because people will misinterpret or misunderstand written words.

Quote: wormwood wrote:
They are supposed to be God inspired...which means that God purposed to inspire exactly what He wanted us to have. The amount of skill or talent that the people who wrote it had is besides the point...because if it isn't inspired...it really doesn't matter either way. I never said this, you were quoting John.

[John]

Quote: What you are now speaking of is “faith” and nothing more, faith is not evidence or vindication of anything.

OK. I'll take that as a complement.

What exactly do you need proof for? That the Gospels were actually written by people who believed what they wrote?


The answer to that is simple. They died for this belief. And people don't lay down their lives for a lie; one that’s only benefit in dying would be if it were true.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

John wrote: Quote: Which serves as no proof whatsoever for the validity of the gospels.


It's the best proof there is.

I know because God has instilled in me the faith to know that I know.

You have a problem with that. Ok. But remember.....thats your problem...not mine. I have my proof.


And my proof isn't going to be your proof.....as it shouldn't be anyway.

It undermines the definition of proof. You don't have anything but a bloated hunch. There are billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Taoists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jevohah's Witnesses, Wiccans, pagans, UFO worshippers, Branch Davidians, tribal animists and New Age horoscope readers just like you. You're a dime a dozen, and you're too weak to keep going without your steady dose of faith to keep you going.

[John]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote: Quote: Which serves as no proof whatsoever for the validity of the gospels.


It's the best proof there is.

I know because God has instilled in me the faith to know that I know.

You have a problem with that. Ok. But remember.....thats your problem...not mine. I have my proof.


And my proof isn't going to be your proof.....as it shouldn't be anyway.

It undermines the definition of proof. You don't have anything but a bloated hunch. There are billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Taoists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jevohah's Witnesses, Wiccans, pagans, UFO worshippers, Branch Davidians, tribal animists and New Age horoscope readers just like you. You're a dime a dozen, and you're too weak to keep going without your steady dose of faith to keep you going.

That isn't really the case. But hey...you're free to believe what you want. :-D

[Gilbert1908]

JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: ot;] You are aware that both Luke and John Mark (Mark) are contemporaries and proteges of Peter and Paul?
That is inaccurate. It is alleged that Mark may have based his gospel from the recollections of Peter, however, this is in serious doubt as many claim Mark based his gospels only on the oral tradition. Furthermore no one knows who John was, many consider John’s gospel anonymous.

I'm sorry what is inaccurate? Luke and Mark (Known also as John Mark) were contemporaries of both Peter and Paul. Paul mentions both Luke and Mark in Timothy[4:11. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry]. when he is imprisoned and Mark who is the cousin of Barnabas, as a fellow traveller with Paul and Barnabas when Paul confronts Peter about their differences on the subject of circumcision[Acts 12:25. And Barnabas and Saul, returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking with them John who was surnamed Mark.]

It is Mark who seperates himself from Paul after a spat in which Barnabas joins with Mark. Mark is close to Peter, referred to in Acts and as "my son" in the Epistles of Peter.


Which brings me back to my point, if Peter and the other Apostles still left are no doubt relating their experiences to all who will listen and , Mark and Luke are contemporaries of Paul and Peter and the Apostles, where is the Gap. Or even if Paul is providing the histories he got from Peter or the others where is the Gap?

[Dr. Wojtyla]

John wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote: Quote: Which serves as no proof whatsoever for the validity of the gospels.


It's the best proof there is.

I know because God has instilled in me the faith to know that I know.

You have a problem with that. Ok. But remember.....thats your problem...not mine. I have my proof.


And my proof isn't going to be your proof.....as it shouldn't be anyway.

It undermines the definition of proof. You don't have anything but a bloated hunch. There are billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Taoists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jevohah's Witnesses, Wiccans, pagans, UFO worshippers, Branch Davidians, tribal animists and New Age horoscope readers just like you. You're a dime a dozen, and you're too weak to keep going without your steady dose of faith to keep you going.

That isn't really the case. But hey...you're free to believe what you want. :-D

The only part that might not be the case is the last part. Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc). You might be mentally strong; there's really no way to know for certain from my vantage point.

But the other part is true (also regardless of the true nature of God). There really isn't a method for the outsider to determine which religion is correct. People who have faith have chosen to abandon the entire concept of proof, choosing instead to run on an engine of naked certainty.

[JDHURF]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I'm sorry what is inaccurate?
Taking the gospels as historically accurate documents.
Gilbert1908 wrote: Luke and Mark (Known also as John Mark) were contemporaries of both Peter and Paul. Paul mentions both Luke and Mark in Timothy[4:11. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry]. when he is imprisoned and Mark who is the cousin of Barnabas, as a fellow traveller with Paul and Barnabas when Paul confronts Peter about their differences on the subject of circumcision[Acts 12:25. And Barnabas and Saul, returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking with them John who was surnamed Mark.]
It is Mark who seperates himself from Paul after a spat in which Barnabas joins with Mark. Mark is close to Peter, referred to in Acts and as "my son" in the Epistles of Peter.
Firstly I would like to point out that the historicity of the apostles are in as much doubt as is the historicity of Jesus, secondly I would point out that Paul did not author Acts, it is believed Luke did and there are even others that believe the true authorship is anonymous and thirdly all of the copies of the gospels, the oldest in existence, are all precisely that copies written by various authors at a much later date. I shall also point out that there is serious debate as to whether or not Paul was the actual author of the Epistle to Timothy. These copies could have easily been added to by those doing the copying, however, it is indisputable that the copies and the copies of the copies all share many mistakes. The gospels as we have them are the gospels as chronicled by nameless scribes.
Gilbert1908 wrote: Which brings me back to my point, if Peter and the other Apostles still left are no doubt relating their experiences to all who will listen and , Mark and Luke are contemporaries of Paul and Peter and the Apostles, where is the Gap. Or even if Paul is providing the histories he got from Peter or the others where is the Gap?
The gap is between the alleged life and times of Jesus and the appearance of the first documents attesting to the story thereof, the gap also refers to the gap of theology existing in the Epistles and the gospels. Do you not find it odd that Paul does not mention one time any miracle of Jesus? You have to face the reality of the situation, Romans and 1 Corinthians were written so as to teach people about the gospel, however, he never mentions the Lord’s prayer, the transfiguration, the sermon on the mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Balilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas, etc. He never refers to Jesus as the “son of man,” an epithet used generously throughout the NT gospels. This is simply contradictory to the claim, made by yourself, that Paul was well aware of the life and times of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels.

[ideal]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion? Granted, I've known many religious people who have been completely worthless mentally and emotionally, but no different can be said for the atheists I've known.

[Gilbert1908]

JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I'm sorry what is inaccurate?
Taking the gospels as historically accurate documents.
Gilbert1908 wrote: Luke and Mark (Known also as John Mark) were contemporaries of both Peter and Paul. Paul mentions both Luke and Mark in Timothy[4:11. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry]. when he is imprisoned and Mark who is the cousin of Barnabas, as a fellow traveller with Paul and Barnabas when Paul confronts Peter about their differences on the subject of circumcision[Acts 12:25. And Barnabas and Saul, returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking with them John who was surnamed Mark.]
It is Mark who seperates himself from Paul after a spat in which Barnabas joins with Mark. Mark is close to Peter, referred to in Acts and as "my son" in the Epistles of Peter.
Firstly I would like to point out that the historicity of the apostles are in as much doubt as is the historicity of Jesus, secondly I would point out that Paul did not author Acts, it is believed Luke did and there are even others that believe the true authorship is anonymous and thirdly all of the copies of the gospels, the oldest in existence, are all precisely that copies written by various authors at a much later date. I shall also point out that there is serious debate as to whether or not Paul was the actual author of the Epistle to Timothy. These copies could have easily been added to by those doing the copying, however, it is indisputable that the copies and the copies of the copies all share many mistakes. The gospels as we have them are the gospels as chronicled by nameless scribes.
Gilbert1908 wrote: Which brings me back to my point, if Peter and the other Apostles still left are no doubt relating their experiences to all who will listen and , Mark and Luke are contemporaries of Paul and Peter and the Apostles, where is the Gap. Or even if Paul is providing the histories he got from Peter or the others where is the Gap?
The gap is between the alleged life and times of Jesus and the appearance of the first documents attesting to the story thereof, the gap also refers to the gap of theology existing in the Epistles and the gospels. Do you not find it odd that Paul does not mention one time any miracle of Jesus? You have to face the reality of the situation, Romans and 1 Corinthians were written so as to teach people about the gospel, however, he never mentions the Lord’s prayer, the transfiguration, the sermon on the mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Balilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas, etc. He never refers to Jesus as the “son of man,” an epithet used generously throughout the NT gospels. This is simply contradictory to the claim, made by yourself, that Paul was well aware of the life and times of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels.


How do you argue that one can not take the Gospels as accurate and then base an arguement which draws factual assumptions on the contents of what you believe are invalid documents?

By doing so you simply support one of my original points which is that nonbelievers BELIEVE those verses which SUPPORT their arguement and dismiss or otherwise negate ALL others as false in order to disprove everything else.

(BTW I didn't say Paul wrote Acts I agree with the vast majority of Biblical scholars and you that Luke is the author.)

And the gap you mentioned was a number of years based upon your assertion that Paul wrote his pieces 40 or so years before the Gospels of Mark and Luke. My assertion is that Mark and Luke are contemporaries of Paul and Peter (as well as other remaining eyewitnesses and Apostles), so both Luke and Mark have ample opportunity to hear directly from some of the original Apostles and others first hand accounts, and therefore there is no "gap".

[John]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote: Quote: Which serves as no proof whatsoever for the validity of the gospels.


It's the best proof there is.

I know because God has instilled in me the faith to know that I know.

You have a problem with that. Ok. But remember.....thats your problem...not mine. I have my proof.


And my proof isn't going to be your proof.....as it shouldn't be anyway.

It undermines the definition of proof. You don't have anything but a bloated hunch. There are billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Taoists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jevohah's Witnesses, Wiccans, pagans, UFO worshippers, Branch Davidians, tribal animists and New Age horoscope readers just like you. You're a dime a dozen, and you're too weak to keep going without your steady dose of faith to keep you going.

That isn't really the case. But hey...you're free to believe what you want. :-D

The only part that might not be the case is the last part. Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc). You might be mentally strong; there's really no way to know for certain from my vantage point.

But the other part is true (also regardless of the true nature of God). There really isn't a method for the outsider to determine which religion is correct. People who have faith have chosen to abandon the entire concept of proof, choosing instead to run on an engine of naked certainty.

Well, strong minded people know what they believe and stand by it. You have no idea how much research I've done. You don't know what information I have that causes me to believe what I believe. I can tell you that I'm not basing what I believe what I do on blind faith. I just don't have as much faith in modern day scientists as you do. Have you ever performed a radiometric dating test? Do you even know what goes into such a test?

Or are you “choosing to run on an engine of naked certainty”?

You see...I have something you don't have. I have all the research that I've done that satisfies my intellectual curiosity....AND I have the assurance I feel in my spirit that tells me that what I believe in is the truth. I have a peace in not having to worry about what if I'm wrong...because I KNOW that I'm right about what really matters.

[John]

ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion? Granted, I've known many religious people who have been completely worthless mentally and emotionally, but no different can be said for the atheists I've known.

No one is worthless mentally and emotionally.

[Faet]

wwwf**k*.org

Satire, but brings up interesting points in the parallels discussed here, and provides links to external sources.

[eynon]

cap'n queasy wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Well, for one thing Y'shua told us the only sign an evil and adulterous people who crave a sign would get only His death and resurrection for their sign. (Matthew 12) He also warned us not to accept false signs. (Matthew 24).

We receive our grace because of faith. Not belief in signs.

Which is appropriate, since faith is all you have left.

It's all I need.

yep, it rules :-D