Archeologly proves the Bible?

[amb]

The people of the Jesus Seminar seem like Modern day Jeffersonians. They don't believe in miracles, and anything Jesus said in the course of miracles is automatically rejected as not coming from Jesus. This accounts for a lot of the words they reject.

On the other hand I believe it was Augustine who said the growth of Christianity without miracles would have been the greatest miracle of all.

You are forgetting that christianity for more than 40 years was just an oral tradition. One believer would tell the story to his neighbor who in turn told his neighbor, with each re-telling the story would be exaggerated beyond reconition.Thus you have your miracles. The law of physics do not allow for any miracles. Even if god did create these laws, why would he break them when he feels like it, wouldn't they be perfect to start with?

 

[pakeha]

...Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

Interesting you would quote John as a source for Jesus' sayings.
Following the link amb gave us earlier, I found this article:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/john.htm


Apparently it can be argued John
1/ was written as part of an anti-Gnostic campaign in the mid 2nd century
2/ includes not one reliable cite or quote from Jesus.
Worth the read.

 

[eccles]

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

So the dear old fellow wrote his own version with his interpretations of the alleged sayings of Jesus. As though the Council of Nicea had not done enough damage.




ROBERT

 

[amb]

Jefferson only did what the ''Jesus Seminar'' did many years later. History has a habit of repeating itself it seems.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

We always seem to come back to the "existence of Harry Potter" argument around here... how many times do I have to tell you people??!? Of course he exists, but he's a jerk! How many more Lumos presentations do you need?? (It's in the fanfic, all in the fanfic...)

Anyway. Personally, I think that the Jesus Seminar may have its limitations, but I'm not so sure that not meeting the standards of historical research is really one of them. I would say that it's basically in the category of being about as historically accurate as things are likely to get when it comes to this area of scholarship. It's not exactly an accident, either, that this statement sounds as vague as it does. I'm not going to be the judge of how much faith the 150 scholars have or don't have, but Biblical scholarship can certainly have purposes other than just being a tool that we use to drag faith along with us. In other words, there are reasons to study what Jesus really did or didn't say or do besides trying to "prove" what our faith should or shouldn't be. If that's why we're doing it, then we didn't have a very good reason to begin with.

I suppose so. It's good to be reminded that studying ancient history is different from studying more modern history, precisely because we have so little to go on. I didn't mean to imply, either, that the Jesus Seminar scholars were doing it *only* for faithy reasons. But I do think that they're often asking a fairly meaningless question if they're trying to separate out the historical Jesus from early Christianity. Jesus didn't write the Gospels, early Christians did. All we have comes from them. I don't think you can make a hard and fast distinction between Jesus's echt teachings and what eventually made it into the Gospels. I suppose I'm a little more like Bultmann in this.

For eccles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

 

[RoboTimbo]

The fact that they might be similar (if in fact they are similar) doesn't mean Christianity is false. One of the first movies ever made had a rocket ship land on the moon in it. This was way before something like landing on the moon in a rocket was even considered a possibility. So when 50 years later we actually do land on the moon in a rocket does that mean it should be viewed with suspicion because it is very similar to the story made 50 years earlier.

It was actually a projectile shot from a cannon. It was incapable of self-propulsion. NOT a rocket.

So do you now believe Christianity to be false?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If you have 4 people watch a Super Bowl game and then ask them to describe the game you will probably get 4 different stories and even some inconsistencies. Inconsistencies are normal with eyewitnesses.

When large sections of the narratives are almost word for word the same then this is something that is normal with plagiarism. And if, on top of that, you also have inconsistencies ...

 

[Monster Machine]

He believed in Jesus. He believed Jesus' teachings were the most moral and sublime in history. And he believed in a God. He wasn't a mainline Christian by any means but his opinion on who has given us the most moral and sublime teachings of all time is worth noting.

DOC - I have seen you misquote Jefferson long enough. I am not sure if this was pointed out to you, but Jefferson did a 19th century cut and paste job on the bible and he declared what was left to be the most sublime teachings of Jesus.

We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.

I haven't read the Jefferson Bible, so I don't know what he kept and what he left out. I am sure I could make the Quoran sound like a picnic in a meadow by removing all the Jihad stuff.

Moreover, it seems quite obvious Jefferson is a heretic, as the bible warns people not to edit / add / remove from the bible. So why are you using Jefferson as some sort of "gotcha" guy? Based on the quotes from dafydd at the end of Page 1, it would appear Jefferson thought organized religion was a joke and a danger.

Please stop using the Jefferson angle - it doesn't fit.

Monster

 

[TimCallahan]

If you have 4 people watch a Super Bowl game and then ask them to describe the game you will probably get 4 different stories and even some inconsistencies. Inconsistencies are normal with eyewitnesses.

As Lord Emsworth has pointed out, the Greek texts of the Synoptic Gospels report the same incident or teaching word-for-word or nearly so in many places. This shows that either all three were copying material from an earlier source or that two of the authors of the Synoptic Gospels were copying from the third. Four independent witnesses would not come up with the same material repeated word-for-word.

Common material in Matthew, Mark and Luke is probably from Mark. However, as Randel Helms has noted in Gospel Fictions, there are also word-for-word copies of Old Testament miracles from the Greek of the Septuagint to the Greek of the Gospels.

While inconsistencies might be expected in eyewitness testimony, contradictions would not. Even though you've chickened out from answering this question so far, please explain how Matthew and Luke could have either been eyewitnesses or collected eyewitness testimony for the Nativity of Jesus when Matthew has Joseph and Mary already living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and fleeing to Egypt to escape from Herod the Great and then to Galilee to escape from Herod Antipas; while Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth and only going to Bethlehem for the census? Matthew knows nothing of Luke's census, and Luke knows nothing of Matthew's slaughter of the innocents. Explain how these could be two eyewitnesses or recipients of eyewitness testimony whose stories disagree so completely.

If you fail to answer my questions, then your Christian witness will be shown to be nothing but evasion and lies.

 

[DOC]

Any chance of a chapter and verse on that claim, please?

I'm talking about the introduction section to the Gospel of Mark in by Bible not the actual Gospel. My bible is published by Tyndale.

 

[Hokulele]

I'm talking about the introduction section to the Gospel of Mark in by Bible not the actual Gospel. My bible is published by Tyndale.

What evidence do they give for that date?

 

[DOC]

Which is a great reason to do so, just like Thomas Jefferson did when he referred to everything supernatural he cut out of the Bible as a "dunghill'

Yes, Jefferson, who wasn't perfect, could be considered the ultimate Cafeteria Christian. He cut out the parts that he said were the most moralistic and sublime teachings in history and made a criticism of the supernatural part. But that didn't stop him from stating he was a Christian, attending church weekly as president, and donating money to the building of churches in Virgina.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, Jefferson, who wasn't perfect, could be considered the ultimate Cafeteria Christian. He cut out the parts that he said were the most moralistic and sublime teachings in history and made a criticism of the supernatural part. But that didn't stop him from stating he was a Christian, attending church weekly as president, and donating money to the building of churches in Virgina.

And this relates to archaeology, how?

 

[DOC]

Another failed analogy. It just means the idea for landing on the moon is NOT ORIGINAL. What does that imply about your Jesus huh?

I don't agree with you but what was my other (in your words) failed analogy?

And are you implying that if Jesus' virgin birth is not a original concept then it can't be true?

 

[DOC]

He wasn't a christian at all. He was a diest.
he called the bible a pile of crap needing editing.

That didn't keep him from donating money to build churches or calling himself a Christian.

 

[joobz]

I'm talking about the introduction section to the Gospel of Mark in by Bible not the actual Gospel. My bible is published by Tyndale.

AHHHH!!!

You read the NLT.

That's very interesting.

A quick comparison:
Luke 12:47

And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished.

what was the original text from the codex:

ϲτων θηϲει · εκει
νοϲ δε ο δουλοϲ
ο γνουϲ το θελη
μα του κυ αυτου
και μη ετοιμαϲαϲ
η ποιηϲαϲ προϲ
το θελημα αυτου
δαρηϲεται πολ

note that
δουλοϲ = slave or bond-servant.
this is commonly translated as:

But that servant that knew his lord’s will, and did not prepare or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes;

I wonder why you choose to use a bible which replaces:
"beaten with many stripes" with "will be severely punished"?

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the original wording? Maybe you think beating slaves isn't an acceptable practice?

 

[joobz]

That didn't keep him from donating money to build churches or calling himself a Christian.

A politician will do what it takes to get elected.

Do you deny that he thought the bible was a pile of crap?

 

[DOC]

Here are some {Jefferson) quotes...

I responded to these type posts in my past 57 page thread on Jefferson and Christianity.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74960

 

[joobz]

I responded to these type posts in my past 57 page thread on Jefferson and Christianity.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74960

Responded does not equal refuted.

 

[DOC]

A politician will do what it takes to get elected.

He was already elected president when he attended weekly church services in the US capitol building (so much for separation of Church and State)

Do you deny that he thought the bible was a pile of crap?

Yes