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

[Lucian]

Wait....




...what?

Don't worry: although belief in itself is insufficient evidence for the elf workshop, there's plenty of other evidence. After all, wonderful toys appear under the tree from Santa, right? Well, that's physical evidence of an elf workshop. Well, I say "workshop"--it's really more of an elf sweatshop. The conditions are deplorable, and Santa won't let the elves unionize. But--hey--toys!

 

[Akhenaten]

...Ehrman fails to show even a human Jesus existed...

Then he shouldn't have said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173 of his new book "Did Jesus Exist".

No, he most certainly shouldn't.

Just as shouldn't keep pretending that this book, which you haven't even read, is supportive of your falsely held opinion that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

 

[joobz]

I don't lie,

I believe you think this is true.

and it is my opinion your argument is just your interpretation of your source.

Yes. It is an interpretation.
An interpretation that is well supported by rational application of linguistics AND substantiated by references.

You have your translation and Young's Literal translation has theirs.

Based upon the evidence, I would suggest Young's is wrong.
If you disagree, I would like to know why.

If people want to believe your translation, so be it.

DOC, you are attempting to minimize the impact of ddt's argument by portraying it as "merely opinion". You are doing this AFTER he provided sources for his argument that YOU requested.
Instead of addressing the argument presented, you resort to a handwaving dismissal. Like a queen turning away a foul tasting wine.

This is simultaneously arrogant, dishonest and insulting.
If you weren't interested in responding to his argument, why ask for his sources?
If you were going to simply ignore his post, why bother engaging in the first place?

 

[Akhenaten]

I really resent that you claimed here that I had not given sources, whereas I clearly had. An apology is due.

Show me exactly where your source and not your interpretation of your source says that Mark 13:30 can not literally be translated as "may pass" as Young's literal translation of the Bible says it is.

You've been shown the source and you've had it explained to you.

As someone whose best effort so far at providing his own explanation for how to translate the Bible from its Greek sources is presenting a Google translation of a few modern Greek words you quite clearly lack the scholarship to understand the sources without having them interpreted for you.

Your demand is laughable.

 

[Akhenaten]

Show me exactly where your source and not your interpretation of your source says that Mark 13:30 can not literally be translated as "may pass" as Young's literal translation of the Bible says it is.

Look up the reference I gave to Thayer's lexicon. It clearly there says the aorist subjunctive has the force of a future tense. That means that "will" is the right auxiliary to translate it with...

So you don't believe the word "may" has anything to do with the future.

This ridiculous soism of yours is so far beyond fail that it's in a different time zone.

 

[Akhenaten]

"So" fail strikes again!

So you and joobz can use "So" but I can't.

Correct.

When joobz, Hokulele and others use the word 'so' it is to introduce a conclusion which has been arrived at by logical consideration the information which preceded it.

When you use the word 'so' it is almost exclusively done so in order to introduce a non sequitur.

So yes, others can use the word 'so' while you demonstrably cannot.


Of course, I do realise that you probably meant to say "So you and joobz may use 'So' but I may not" but since you've already displayed a comprehensive inability to understand the word 'may' it's no surprise that you've continued in that vein.

quod erat demonstrandum ​

 

[pakeha]

So then you must believe these people died for Bart Ehrman's Jesus and not the resurrected Jesus of theologians and preachers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

I was wondering when DOC was going to bring up that list again.
DOC, have you gotten to reading the book in question yet?
Does it have lots of nice pictures to look at?

 

[Akhenaten]

I've already said it his opinion Jesus is not divine, just like it is his opinion Jesus certainly existed.

Since this entire thread is predicated on your claim that the New Testament writers, told the truth - a truth is inclusive of the alleged Jesus' divinity - why are you so hell bent on talking about this book when it clearly opposes that claim.

He has the right to his opinions.

Quite, but given that his opinion is that the New Testament writers weren't telling the truth it's an extreme curiosity that you are so determined to promote it.

 

[Akhenaten]

So you don't believe the word "may" has anything to do with the future.

Did you understand what ddt said about the aorist subjunctive having the force of a future tense? If you had understood it, you would not have asked that ridiculous question.

The evidence is pretty clear that he doesn't understand the English meaning of the word 'may' so I think we may safely assume that its meaning in Greek is going to be a complete mystery to him.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's been pointed out to you often enough that Ehrman states quite definitely that the Jesus of theologians and preachers did not exist;

So then you must believe these people died for Bart Ehrman's Jesus and not the resurrected Jesus of theologians and preachers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Your soisms are becoming so breathtakingly ludicrous that they're actually starting to suck meaning out of the surrounding atmosphere.

Apart from the complete irrelevance of the point that you think you're making, the answer to your imaginary dilemma is that the alleged martyrs on that list didn't die for either Sir Bart's Jesus or the resurrected Jesus, neither of which has been shown to exist. If they died at all it was for the sake of imaginary Jesus; the Jesus that you've been posting about in this thread since 2008.

All you're doing by posting that stupid list dozens and dozens of times is the same thing you've been doing for years - providing evidence for the existence of Christians,

Actually, that's not all you're doing. You're also reminding me that you still haven't explained to us what happened to Simon Zelotes and which New Testament writers (if any) told the truth about his fate and which ones were just making stuff up.

 

[Akhenaten]

So you actually believe everyone on that list existed.

He believes that at least one of them existed multiple times.

 

[Akhenaten]

"
Why didn't you? Why did you lie about that?

ETA: Oh, and your apology better extend also to your equivocation of "may" with future.

I don't lie, and it is my opinion your argument is just your interpretation of your source.

Of course you lie. The above assertion is itself evidence that a previous statement of yours, that ddt had failed to provide sources, was knowingly false.

Since you seem to need constant reminding of the things that you've said, here it is yet again:

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.

So, DOC . . .

On the one hand you're saying that ddt hasn't provided any sources, which is itself a lie, and on the other hand you're saying that his explanations are nothing more than his interpretation of those same (non-existent, according to you) sources.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive, eh, DOC?


But wait! There's more!

How do you explain this?

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Well, DOC? How do you explain it?

You have your translation and Young's Literal translation has theirs.

This is a false dichotomy.

And appalling grammar.

If people want to believe your translation, so be it.

Quite, but if you're so insouciant about what people end up believing then why exactly are you here perjuring yourself? Why are you cluttering up Phelix's thread with your drivel if you don't care that nobody believes any of it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well since it seems most skeptics don't care what I believe . . .

It's quite unlikely that many Christians would care what you believe either, given what precious little it has to do with their own faith.

. . . I'll say Ehrman believes Peter, James (the brother of Jesus), Paul, and Judas existed . . .

With the exception of Paul, who actually invented the religion that you pretend to be a part of, the historical existence of people with these names has nothing to do with their existence as biblical characters.

Unless of course you have some evidence that you've been sitting on for all these years that the New Testament writers told the truth about them.

. . . and said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ.

Isis wept, DOC, you've already (finally) admitted that Ehrman doesn't believe that the alleged Jesus was the Christ. Why would he say that anything at all happened to someone in whom he doesn't believe?

Why don't you at least buy the damned book and read it so you don't keep getting caught out like this?

I don't know how he feels about the others on the list.

As a result of your not having even read the book it's apparent to everyone who's cast an eye over the last dozen pages or so of the thread that you have no idea what Ehrman thinks about anything.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let me see if I have this right:

DOC brings up Bart Ehrman's latest book, in which Ehrman attempts to prove the existence of a historical person behind the Jesus narrative, thinking that because skeptics like Ehrman's other books, we'll have to agree with this one.

Yes, although his "thinking" goes one step further and he assumes that our acceptance of an historical Jesus is tantamount to acceptance of MAgical Zombie Jesus.

Everyone else points out that this book, unlike Ehrman's other books, is a load of poorly-researched and fallacy-ridden hogwash.

As well as making the point that if DOC had actually read the book himself he'd at least have been able to mount some kind of credible defence against this criticism.

DOC spends 3 pages trying to understand why skeptics don't accept Ehrman's authority on the issue.

I think "trying to understand" might be a bit too charitable.

 

[Krikkiter]

Can we now safely assume that the Ehrman Angle is dead?

 

[Mojo]

Can we now safely assume that the Ehrman Angle is dead?

Probably (until DOC thinks we've forgotten about it).

 

[zooterkin]

You know an apology will come at about the same time as the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon, don't you?

Well, it's just possible I might have more information on that after tonight...

But no, even though we got to the End of the Universe, the Great Prophet did not appear.

 

[zooterkin]

Probably (until DOC thinks we've forgotten about it).

Indeed. As I think I may have mentioned before, I see this as exactly the same as DOC's co-opting of Jefferson. It's a bit like a UFOlogist using an official government publication about Area 51 as proof that aliens are visiting in flying saucers.

 

[wollery]

No response to this DOC?

So, what you're saying is that we can't trust anything Jesus said to be true or accurate, or to properly reflect the knowledge or will of God. Some or all of the things Jesus said could be complete and utter bollocks, according to you.

Got it.

 

[tsig]

Some one in here said on the first page (which I currently can't get on for some reason) that I basically say the Resurrection is true because the bible said so. I've never said the Resurrection is true because the bible said so, but I have presented sites like the one below to give rational reasons to believe it happened.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Here's a familiar quote:

Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

DOC is Josh McDowell inspired by god?