Dan's Stuff

[noski]

Anything written by anyone other than the men who lived with Jesus is certainly suspect. To compare the opinion of religious scholars to someone who would claim JFK was a 7 foot ,red headed Chinaman is insulting . And a poor rebuttle. Comes off like a beer commercial. BTW Stephen, do you have any degrees in theoligical studies ?
Jesus , the man, certainly could have walked on water with his adopted Father's grace.
The Church has made sure no written evidence refuting Jesus' divinity has survived as much as it possibly can up to and including murder.That is historical fact, not 'logic' . And if Jesus was truely God, why didn't he say it all the time? The 4 gospels should be full of Jesus telling folks he was God. In fact as he stood in front of Pilate he had the perfect opportunity to settle the whole affair ( if indeed he was God). Instead he told Pilate," It is you who say I am" (God)
Guess he was just being honest...
Finally, your 3rd point directly says '4 gospels' but your Chinaman explanation then includes the whole new testament and its authors. I 'll choose believe the man who actually lived and dined with Jesus and was there when he died as opposed to the men who never knew the Jesus and only heard the stories. The president of Iran continually says the Houlocost (sp) never happened . That is what he believes. I choose to believe the people who were in the death camps.

[noski]

You also say that I "must" accept that the authors of the gospels were "liars" if I choose to question what is in them. No I do not. I question what has been changed by the keepers of the book in the last 2000 years. Historical proof exists (which you continually ignore , like the President of Iran) that man has fudged what is in the book since it was written. I can show you a photograph of a Middle Ages bible where a bishop reprimands a scribe to "stick to the text " in Latin in the borders of the bible itself. The Catholic Church has come out and apoligized for depicting Mary Magdalene as a prostitute and changing the bible. And yet many people still think she was a prostitute.What else have they changed over the years? i gotta tell you Stephen, your remarks sound like someone trying to keep control over something and not someone who is admonishing others to look for 'truth' in other parts of this forum. Please don't take this as an attack. I have told you before I respect and admire you as a man and my opinion has not changed in that regard.
May peace be upon you...
( and it may have been Herrod who asked Jesus if he was God but the point remains...)

[Stephen]

Jun 5, 2010 14:05:44 GMT -5 noski said:

To compare the opinion of religious scholars to someone who would claim JFK was a 7 foot ,red headed Chinaman is insulting . And a poor rebuttle.

It was not a rebuttal. It was a comparison.

Stephen, do you have any degrees in theoligical studies ?

I am proud to say that I have not been institutionally indoctrinated in theological studies.

Remember, any idiot can get a degree. The hard part is getting over it.

The Church has made sure no written evidence refuting Jesus' divinity has survived as much as it possibly can up to and including murder.That is historical fact, not 'logic'

I would read with interest of any direct eyewitness evidence that was suppressed by (any) church. Please tell me where I can find it.

And if Jesus was truely God, why didn't he say it all the time? The 4 gospels should be full of Jesus telling folks he was God.

We don't know how frequently he said it. The fact that his claims to divinity are recorded does not mean that they represent the totality of everything he said. Perhaps he said it all the time, perhaps scripture records every instance. We don't know.

In fact as he stood in front of Pilate he had the perfect opportunity to settle the whole affair

It is important to understand that for you, this would have settled nothing because you have already rejected a total of ten occasions as being an insufficient number to convince you of his divinity. I can't imagine that the magical 11th reference to divinity would suddenly change your mind.

Further, Jesus did "settle the whole affair" in Luke 22:70 which states "They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' He replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'"

That's about as plain as it gets, yet you apparently reject it. Why would you suddenly accept his statement to Pilate when you reject a statement as plain as this?

I 'll choose believe the man who actually lived and dined with Jesus and was there when he died

What men, specifically, are you referring to? The only people that I know of who fit such a description are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, yet you reject the books bearing their names.

Are there other people that I am unaware of who "lived and dined with Jesus and [were] there when he died?" If so, I would be as interested in their statements as you are.

[Stephen]

Jun 5, 2010 15:21:27 GMT -5 noski said:

I question what has been changed by the keepers of the book in the last 2000 years.

Do you question the accuracy of the accounts of Plato? No. Yet only 7 copies of those accounts exist, and those copies were made 750 years after his death.

Do you question the accuracy of the accounts of Caesar? No. Yet only 10 copies of those accounts exist, and those copies were made 1000 years after his death.

Do you question the accuracy of the accounts of Aristotle? No. Yet only 49 copies of those accounts exist, and they were made 1400 years after his death.

Do you question the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus? Yes. Yet 5,600 copies of the New Testament exist, all made within 100 years of Jesus' death, with 99.5% accuracy in the consistency of their texts.

Have people messed with the translations? Certainly. Is our current translation perfect? Of course not. But if we reject the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus' life, consistency demands that we also reject everything we know about Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Thucydides, Herodotus and nearly every ancient historical figure.

I have to say, Dan, that it is not me that is rejecting truth to defend a position. I am merely answering your question. If you do not want the answer, that's fine. You do not have to agree with me. But you did ask a question and I am merely offering an answer. There is sound logic and a mountain of historical evidence to demonstrate that the accounts we have today of Jesus' life are nearly identical to the original manuscripts, and those manuscripts have far better provenance than any other ancient texts in existence whose accuracy we never question.

[noski]

I don't ever remember discussing Plato, Caesar and Aristotle with you. Yet, somehow you know how I feel . Thanks for telling me. 5600 manuscrpts that are 99% accurate? Wow! I can only speculate where you pulled that number from! You must have an almost divine source for such accuracy. Well, in the 2nd century,(the time you are saying the scipts are 99% accurate) a revered church father named Origen (he is still revered by church scholars) once registered the following complaint about the copies of the Gospels at his disposal ( the ones you are refering to) I quote..."The differences among the manuscripts have become great, ( but only .5% according to Stephen's source or perhaps Origen had absolutely no idea of the definition of the word'great') either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or , in the process of checking, (now this is the important part...) THEY MAKE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS AS THEY PLEASE." These are the words of a Christian elder, one of the leaders.A man who was there. 99% accurate? Really?
Celsus, a pagan critic of Christianity who lived 70 years or so before Origen (Stephen has repeatedly asserted that since no written anti-Christian opinions exist then the story must be true) maligned the Christian copyists for their transgressive copying practices... I quote, "Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism." (Against Celsus2.27
Celsus is not the only pagan critic of the early Christians. The pagan Porphy wrote..."The evangelists were fiction writers, not observers or eye witness of the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion."
Please produce the"sound logic and the 'mountain' of historical evidence that demonstrates that the accounts we have today of Jesus' life are 'nearly' identical to the original manuscripts that have far better pronenance than 'any' other ancient texts in existence". Apparently you know more about the original manuscripts than the Christian elder Origen who actually held them in his hands and read them.

[Stephen]

Oct 9, 2010 12:16:39 GMT -5 noski said:

I don't ever remember discussing Plato, Caesar and Aristotle with you. Yet, somehow you know how I feel . Thanks for telling me.

No, I did not tell you "how you feel." Let's revisit what I actually said...

I said that you have not questioned the accuracy of their works. This is a true statement. Review this entire thread carefully and it is an indisputable fact that you have not questioned the accuracy of their works, nor are you doing so now.

5600 manuscrpts that are 99% accurate? Wow! I can only speculate where you pulled that number from! You must have an almost divine source for such accuracy.

Set your emotionalism aside, Dan. You have answered your own question. Textual criticism compares different copies of the same texts to see how much variance exists between them. The earliest copies of NT works has less than .5% variance, far more accurate than the works of Plato, and others that you do not question.

You're so emotional about this that you're missing the key argument... you're far better off questioning what early copies have been included in the textual criticism analysis than making silly emotional statements about "divine sources of accuracy." The possible limitations of the tested samples are better attack. You might find something there.

Well, in the 2nd century,(the time you are saying the scipts are 99% accurate) a revered church father named Origen (he is still revered by church scholars) once registered the following complaint about the copies of the Gospels at his disposal ( the ones you are refering to) I quote..."The differences among the manuscripts have become great, ( but only .5% according to Stephen's source or perhaps Origen had absolutely no idea of the definition of the word'great') either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or , in the process of checking, (now this is the important part...) THEY MAKE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS AS THEY PLEASE." These are the words of a Christian elder, one of the leaders.A man who was there. 99% accurate? Really?
Celsus, a pagan critic of Christianity who lived 70 years or so before Origen (Stephen has repeatedly asserted that since no written anti-Christian opinions exist then the story must be true) maligned the Christian copyists for their transgressive copying practices... I quote, "Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism." (Against Celsus2.27
Celsus is not the only pagan critic of the early Christians. The pagan Porphy wrote..."The evangelists were fiction writers, not observers or eye witness of the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion."

Celsus and Origen stated their views on a topic. Although you never knew these guys and have produced zero evidence other than their stated opinions, you accept their opinions as gospel and embrace them. You even offer these opinions as certified fact here on this thread, and casually substitute them for actual evidence.

All of this is okay... I don't mind at all.

But you need to realize that you have produced no more actual evidence for the statements of Celsus and Origen than I have for Matthew or John. Yet you utterly reject the latter and embrace the former.

Please produce the"sound logic and the 'mountain' of historical evidence that demonstrates that the accounts we have today of Jesus' life are 'nearly' identical to the original manuscripts that have far better pronenance than 'any' other ancient texts in existence". Apparently you know more about the original manuscripts than the Christian elder Origen who actually held them in his hands and read them.

I've already produced the number, date and accuracy of the works of Plato, Ceasar and Aristotle, and compared them to the number, date and accuracy of the early copies of the NT, but you dismiss them without comment or thought.

Dan, you need to face the fact that for you, this is not about proof or evidence. There is no amount of evidence that will ever convince you of anything. This is about your emotions. You accept what you want to accept from Celsus, Origen, or anyone else who denies the validity of scripture with or without verifiable evidence, yet reject the authors of scripture on the same basis.

Did, in fact, Celsus and Origen have access to the original copies of the gospels? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that? Witnesses? Surviving documents from independent sources verifying the originality of the copies in their hands? No. You have nothing. Yet you believe anyway.

I wish more Christians had that kind of faith.

[noski]

"Belief is frequently a matter of convenience rather than the result of objectively weighing evidence."

Jeff Guinn, author

[noski]

BTW Stephen,My source material comes from a born again Christian who learned to read and write the ancient Greek language. He HAS held the original documents that todays bible is based on. Can you read ancient Greek?
He discovered that the last 12 verses of Mark in todays bible were added by a scribe hundeds of years later. Have you ever held one of the original Greek texts in your hand? Neither have I.
Anyway, the problem is now you have people 'speaking tongues' and handling snakes based on the words of a Middle Ages monk and not the gospel of Mark. But if confronted with these 'facts' (let's not let the facts get in the way) those same people would be most likely to choose Mr. Gunn's definition of belief.
As far as the other books you keep mentioning, they have no importance in this discussion because a) No one has ever told me they were inspired by God b) No one has ever told me the books are the absolute word of God and c) No one has ever told me if I did not believe what was in those books that I could not be saved. Just another of your strawman arguements.
So let me recap.
Two of the gospels say Jesus' trial was held at night, another says it was held during the day.
One gospel says Jesus was crucified in the morning before Passover another says it was afternoon. Stephen's response was to make a joke about Jewish clock makers. (See Guinn's definition of belief)
When I pointed out the verses that OK slavery, Stephen's response was to ridicule God's words. (See Guinn's definition of the word belief)
In Mark 4 Jesus says 'the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds on the earth'. In fact the mustard seed is not the smallest seed on earth. I expect Stephen will want to see my degree in biology.
Luke says Mary and Joseph went to Nazereth after going to Bethlehem and Matthew says they went to Egypt.( Insert Stephen's joke about a bad travel agent)
When asked "How do I get Heaven?" Christians mention the verse about "only through me" ect. (which is why this discussion began) How come not one Christian has ever said to me what Jesus says in Mark 10:20-23
And Stephen, stop telling me how I feel , what I MUST believe when you make a rebuttle, and putting words in my mouth.
Those are the traits of a controlling personality, not someone who considers himself an historian.

[Stephen]

Jan 9, 2012 10:38:17 GMT -5 noski said:

BTW Stephen,My source material comes from a born again Christian who learned to read and write the ancient Greek language. He HAS held the original documents that todays bible is based on. Can you read ancient Greek?

A few posts ago you were quoting Celsus and Origen as your sources.

Now you've switched to an unnamed person who claims to hold the original Biblical documents (which do not exist, BTW - all extant texts are copies), who claims to read ancient Greek.

Your standards of proof seem pretty lax for a guy who demands absolute, concrete evidence before he accepts a single word from scripture.

He discovered that the last 12 verses of Mark in todays bible were added by a scribe hundeds of years later.

1) Your friend didn't discover this. The controversy over the last 12 verses of Mark goes back centuries.

2) The theory that these verses were added later is based on the three earliest known texts of Mark (Alexandrian texts dating to the late 4th century). The passage is not included in these texts.

3) The Alexandrian manuscripts are among the least reliable of all available Biblical texts, containing more than 3,000 internal contradictions and more than 8,000 differences from the much broader and more accurate Textus Receptus (the basis for the KJV).

4) The weight of evidence suggests that the last 12 verses of Mark were not added to after the Alexandrian texts, but actually deleted during the printing of the Alexandrian texts.

Your friend is 900 years behind.

Have you ever held one of the original Greek texts in your hand?

There are no original Greek texts. How can you not know that, yet have such strong opinions on the topic?

Anyway, the problem is now you have people 'speaking tongues' and handling snakes based on the words of a Middle Ages monk and not the gospel of Mark. But if confronted with these 'facts' (let's not let the facts get in the way) those same people would be most likely to choose Mr. Gunn's definition of belief.

Quoting one side of an issue badly and 900 years late hardly qualifies as "confronting" people with "facts."

As far as the other books you keep mentioning, they have no importance in this discussion because a) No one has ever told me they were inspired by God b) No one has ever told me the books are the absolute word of God and c) No one has ever told me if I did not believe what was in those books that I could not be saved. Just another of your strawman arguements.

Why do you not question that the works of Plato, Caesar and Aristotle are historically correct texts when none of them have more than 50 copies in existence, and then turn around and reject the historical accuracy of scripture when nearly 6,000 copies exist by which to conduct historical research and textual criticism?

Answer the question.

So let me recap.
Two of the gospels say Jesus' trial was held at night, another says it was held during the day.
One gospel says Jesus was crucified in the morning before Passover another says it was afternoon. Stephen's response was to make a joke about Jewish clock makers. (See Guinn's definition of belief)
When I pointed out the verses that OK slavery, Stephen's response was to ridicule God's words. (See Guinn's definition of the word belief)
In Mark 4 Jesus says 'the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds on the earth'. In fact the mustard seed is not the smallest seed on earth. I expect Stephen will want to see my degree in biology.
Luke says Mary and Joseph went to Nazereth after going to Bethlehem and Matthew says they went to Egypt.( Insert Stephen's joke about a bad travel agent)

There are answers to each of the above and many of them have been offered here. Most of those answers are tired, old no-brainers that can be answered by any school child with fifteen minutes of study. And admittedly, a few of them are difficult.

But that doesn't really matter. You're not seeking truth, you're arguing. There is no logic or evidence that can change your mind.

When asked "How do I get Heaven?" Christians mention the verse about "only through me" ect. (which is why this discussion began) How come not one Christian has ever said to me what Jesus says in Mark 10:20-23

Because the scripture doesn't apply to your question. C'mon, Dan... do you even read this stuff before you post?

Zebedee's wife was asking how her sons could get a seat on either the right hand side or the left hand side of God's throne. She did not ask how to get to heaven. She asked how to get a favored place near God's throne once you were in heaven.

If she had asked how to get to heaven, Jesus would likely have told her the same thing He told Thomas in John 14:6, which, ironically, is the same thing you claim that Christians keep telling you.

And Stephen, stop telling me how I feel , what I MUST believe when you make a rebuttle, and putting words in my mouth.
Those are the traits of a controlling personality, not someone who considers himself an historian.

I will continue to tell you what you must believe when you must believe it.

A person who believes that 2+2=5 must also believe that 4+4=10. There is no alternative. Consistency with their own belief system demands it, otherwise they are contradicting their own claims.

When you apply one standard to one historical text and another standard to the Bible, I will continue to observe the inconsistency.

When you reject one source for lack of evidence and accept another source with equal or less evidence, I will observe that inconsistency as well.

[Stephen]

Jan 9, 2012 8:38:26 GMT -5 noski said:

"Belief is frequently a matter of convenience rather than the result of objectively weighing evidence."

Jeff Guinn, author

You have presented no more evidence for Celsus and Origen than I have for John or Mark... yet you reject the latter and embrace the former.

You have presented no more evidence for the Alexandrian texts than I have against them... yet you accept their legitimacy without question.

You present as evidence an unnamed person who claims to have "discovered" a controversy in Mark that was actually found over 900 years ago.

You bitterly contest every word of scripture that is backed by 5,600 early texts, yet never question scores of other equally famous works that have virtually no historical texts to support them.

And now you offer quotes about "objectively weighing evidence?" Seriously?

Dan, I respect your right to hold any opinions you like, but please do not pass them off as any more legitimate or supportable than anyone else's. You are as dogmatic and biased as the Christians you love to condemn.

You should delete your quote above as fast as you can.