Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[joobz]

So then do you believe these alleged forgers were responsible for duping Thomas Jefferson into saying the morality of Jesus is greatest he's ever read.

no, because he didn't include the forged parts in his bible.
Remember how TJ called the bible a dungheap?


But, I'm glad you made this argument. It exposes your dishonest quotemining game you play.

 

[Dinwar]

So then do you believe these alleged forgers were responsible for duping Thomas Jefferson into saying the morality of Jesus is greatest he's ever read.

"Atlas Shrugged" demonstrated (love it or hate it) that fictional characters can be used to portray moral principles. Thus, the fact that someone liked a morality discussed in a book is by no means proof that the book didn't happen--unless you're willing to argue that there really IS a transcontinental railroad called Taggart Transcontinental?

Forgery is, essentially, one type of fiction. The forger is, in this case, an author. The AUTHOR is the generator of the morality, not the character in the book. If the AUTHOR had a decent morality, and ascribed it to Jesus for some reason of his/her own, then you'd get a forged copy of the Bible that contains a morality some people will like.

This stuff takes about a minute to figure out once you get past the "the Bible MUST be true!!!!" stage.

 

[DOC]

Unlike you I've actually read Ehrman's book and I can see how weak his case is. There is no significant evidence that the core figure of xianity ever existed as a physical being...

I've read about 30% of the book which is mostly arguing that Jesus did exist. And I see you disagree with Ehrman's statement that "Jesus certainly existed".

At the end of the book it seems his biggest argument against Jesus being divine is the ol' "This generation shall/may not pass" verse, and that Jesus was a an Apocalyptic preacher. (I however believe the evidence is there Jesus was much more than just this.)

Regarding the "This generation shall/may not pass" verse (Mark 13:30), Ehrman doesn't say a word (that I saw) that "genea" can be translated as "race", and he doesn't say a word about Young's Literal Translation of the verse that says "This generation "may" not pass.

I also didn't see him talk about the verse two verses later that says no one, not even the Son of Man knows the day or hour.

___

My main reason for talking about this book is: "skeptics won't believe me when I say the historical evidence is there that Jesus existed, but some might believe Bart Ehrman when he says Jesus certainly existed.

And before you can believe Jesus was divine you have to believe he existed. So even though I don't agree with Ehrman's final conclusion and I don't believe he was ever a real Christian filled with the Holy Spirit (he does claim he was a Christian), I think the book might help some skeptics break their Jesus never existed entrenched mindset.

 

[DOC]

So then do you agree that TJ was correct when he removed the magical parts of the Bible?

How many times do you need to be told that the forged parts, which is to say the parts that talk about Magical Zombie Jesus and his fabricated life story are exactly the parts that Sir Thomas made sure to exclude?

Actually Jefferson did mention in the book an angel and he mentioned Jesus' statement the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually Jefferson did mention in the book an angel and he mentioned Jesus' statement the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

So then you do agree that Jesus wasn't the Christ nor the son of god.

 

[Lucian]

I've read about 30% of the book which is mostly arguing that Jesus did exist. And I see you disagree with Ehrman's statement that "Jesus certainly existed".

At the end of the book it seems his biggest argument against Jesus being divine is the ol' "This generation shall not pass" verse, and that Jesus was a an Apocalyptic preacher. (I however believe the evidence is there Jesus was much more than just this.)

Regarding the "This generation will not pass" verse (Mark 13:30), Ehrman doesn't say a word (that I saw) that "genea" can be translated as "race", and he doesn't say a word about Young's Literal Translation of the verse that says "This generation "may"not pass.

<snip>

Presumably because he knows enough about biblical Greek to know the weakness of these arguments (or have you not seen ddt's excellent discussions of these passages?)

 

[Akhenaten]

I've read about 30% of the book which is mostly arguing that Jesus did exist. And I see you disagree with Ehrman's statement that , "Jesus certainly existed".

The magical zombie Jesus of the Bible and the alleged historical Jesus that Ehrman is talking about are not the same entity.​

Is it the colour that makes it hard for you to see?

At the end of the book it seems his biggest argument against Jesus being divine is the ol' "This generation shall not pass" verse, and that Jesus was a just an Apocalyptic preacher. (I however believe the evidence is there Jesus was much more than just this.)

It doesn't matter what his biggest argument is, the fact remains that he doesn't believe in the alleged Jesus' divinity and yet you bizarrely continue to plug this book that you don't own and haven't read as though it supports your unsubstantiated claims.

And what you believe yourself is as utterly irrelevant as it's always been.

He doesn't say a word (that I saw) that "genea" can be translated as "race", and he doesn't say a word about Young's Literal Translation of the verse that says "This generation "may' not pass.

Then why are you mentioning it?

You've been conclusively demonstrated to have been wrong about that translation yourself, so why in the name of Osiris would you be expecting Ehrman to make the same mistake?

How are you going with the Greek lesson that ddt kindly posted for you, by the way? I've just about finished my assignment.

I also didn't see him talk about the verse two verses later that says no one, not even the Son of Man knows the day or hour.

Did you see him talking about setting the defenses at Helm's Deep?

Did you seem him describing how to build a space shuttle?

A cure for cancer? Whirled peas?


Or more importantly, did you see him talking about the alleged Jesus' divinity? Hmm?

My main reason for talking about this book is: "skeptics won't believe me when I say the historical evidence is there that Jesus existed, but some might believe Bart Ehrman when he says the evidence is certainly there.

Skeptics don't believe you when you try to claim that there's evidence for Magical Zombie Jesus and neither would Ehrman.

The existence of an alleged historical Jesus has absolutely no bearing on whether the New Testament writers told the truth.

And before you can believe Jesus was divine you have to believe he existed.

You don't say.

So even though I don't agree with Ehrman's final conclusion and I don't believe he was ever a real Christian filled with the Holy Spirit, I think the book might help some skeptics break their Jesus never existed entrenched mindset.

Even if this was to happen, you aren't one micron closer to achieving your aim in this thread to demonstrate the existence of Magical Zombie Jesus.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually Jefferson did mention in the book an angel and he mentioned Jesus' statement the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

1. Where are your references?
   
   
2. How do either of these things demonstrate that Jesus had Magical Powerz?

 

[DOC]

1. Where are your references?
   
   
2. How do either of these things demonstrate that Jesus had Magical Powerz?

If I take the 15 or so minutes to look it up it's not going to change your belief. Why don't you take the time to go through the 60+ page book on the web. I'm saying there there.

 

[Akhenaten]

This stuff takes about a minute to figure out once you get past the "the Bible MUST be true!!!!" stage.

Ay, there's the rub.

 

[DOC]

Presumably because he knows enough about biblical Greek to know the weakness of these arguments (or have you not seen ddt's excellent discussions of these passages?)

Discussions but no sources as to why it can't literally say "may pass".

 

[Akhenaten]

1. Where are your references?
   
   
2. How do either of these things demonstrate that Jesus had Magical Powerz?

If I take the 15 or so minutes to look it up it's not going to change your belief.

I don't believe anything. That's why I'm asking you for evidence.

Either produce some or I will quite reasonably assume that this claim is, like all of your others, without merit.

Why don't you take the time to go through the 60+ page book on the web.

Because there is no onus upon me to substantiate your claims. The default here is that you're making stuff up. Do, or do not, DOC. I don't care,

Question mark dropped off your keyboard again, has it?

I'm saying there there.

Makes as much sense as anything else you've said so far.

 

[Akhenaten]

Discussions but no sources as to why it can't literally say "may pass".

That is an outright lie, DOC.

Oh, I'm glad you said that. I know nothing about Greek in any of its forms, but I was going to guess that was an attempt to translate the subjunctive.

You're welcome!

I'd like to point out, in general terms, why it can be problematic (or impossible) to translate verb tenses absolutely literally. In modern English, it is the convention to use the literary present ("In his famous soliloquoy, Hamlet says..."). The French, as I recall, use the historical present. Since that sounds weird in English, we translate it as the past tense. Old Norse sagas have a tendency to shift from past tense to present and back. Since that is confusing in English, translations usually stick to the past tense.

The Greek here uses the aorist. Good luck with translating that one "literally". (and let's also not forget aspect here too). However, the conjunctions used here - "when" and "until" clearly express that JC is speaking of things that will happen in the (near) future.

In modern English, the subjunctive mood is just barely hanging on by its fingernails.

God save the Queen subjunctive!

In other languages, it is used extensively and for a variety of purposes. Some uses of the subjunctive are idiomatic and don't really translate well or at all to English.

For instance, in German the subjunctive is always used in indirect speech. However, in many cases it's not apparent as most forms with (weak) German verbs coincide with that of the indicative.

Christ did say no man, including himself, knows the day or the hour of the end of the world. The "may" wording is consistent with Christ's statement that no one knows the time. But he also warned to stay vigilant because it will come like a thief in the night.

The whole chapter is about Jesus predicting the end of times. He's not giving that speech to say "well, it's possible the end of the world will come", no, he is predicting it will come, and in the lifetime of his audience.

And that he says no one knows the time but the Father is not in contradiction to that: see the unexpected hanging paradox.

Christ did say no man, including himself, knows the day or the hour of the end of the world. The "may" wording is consistent with Christ's statement that no one knows the time. But he also warned to stay vigilant because it will come like a thief in the night.

Further to this, this is what Thayer's Greek lexicon says about the conjunction ὅταν used in Mark 13:29:

ὅταν, a particle of time, compound of ὅτε and ἄν, at the time that, whenever (German dannwann;wannirgend); used of things which one assumes will really occur, but the time of whose occurrence he does not definitely fix

So yes, Christ assumed really the end of times would occur, during his apostles' lifetime.

 

[Lucian]

Discussions but no sources as to why it can't literally say "may pass".

Well, first of all, ddt himself has studied Koine Greek and is able to explain convincingly exactly how the subjunctive is used in this instance. I admit that I am not familiar with Greek in any form, but I do know enough about how languages work to understand what he's saying. As I said in a previous post, even before ddt's explanation, I had a pretty good idea that Young was attempting rather awkwardly to translate the subjunctive.

Secondly, he so totally did cite sources.

 

[joobz]

My main reason for talking about this book is: ... I think ...Jesus never existed...

If you say so.
your words..



ETA:
DOC, I'm illustrating what your argument looks like.
To use part of someone's argument and not the whole argument is dishonest. Especially since you have no good reason to make a distinction.

And, your point that jesus must exist. Well his existence gets you no closer to showing he's a god.
Kim Jong Il existed.
He wasn't a god.

 

[Dinwar]

Why don't you take the time to go through the 60+ page book on the web.

So now we have to do your work for you? No thanks. Come back when you actually care about your arguments (if you're not willing to research your position, you don't care about it).

 

[Akhenaten]

Discussions but no sources as to why it can't literally say "may pass".

Well, first of all, ddt himself has studied Koine Greek and is able to explain convincingly exactly how the subjunctive is used in this instance. I admit that I am not familiar with Greek in any form, but I do know enough about how languages work to understand what he's saying. As I said in a previous post, even before ddt's explanation, I had a pretty good idea that Young was attempting rather awkwardly to translate the subjunctive.

Secondly, he so totally did cite sources.

I think DOC hopes that nobody is keeping track.

As if.

 

[DOC]

I don't believe anything. That's why I'm asking you for evidence.

Either produce some or I will quite reasonably assume that this claim is, like all of your others, without merit.

I'll take the 15 minutes to look it up if you agree you will apologize if I find it and never say anything negative about me. You won't do that so I won't take the 15 minutes to look it up. If you really cared about the information you would take me up on the offer.

 

[Dinwar]

I'll take the 15 minutes to look it up if you agree you will apologize if I find it and never say anything negative about me.

You expect people to NEVER say ANYTHING negative about you because you did the minimum research necessary for your opinion to be valid?

You don't think highly of yourself at all, do you?

If you really cared about the information you would take me up on the offer.

And if you gave two hoots about the veracity of what you're saying you'd have already done this. You haven't, so you don't.

 

[DOC]

Well, first of all, ddt himself has studied Koine Greek and is able to explain convincingly exactly how the subjunctive is used in this instance.

I didn't see how he explained it can't mean "may pass". If you do, fine. I invite him to do it again.

I admit that I am not familiar with Greek in any form, but I do know enough about how languages work to understand what he's saying. As I said in a previous post, even before ddt's explanation, I had a pretty good idea that Young was attempting rather awkwardly to translate the subjunctive.

Secondly, he so totally did cite sources.

Where does his sources say it can't literally say "may pass".