How much do we know?

BilliardsBall · Aug 7, 2019

blü 2 said:
But you said rape was NEVER justified, and here's your god impregnating Matthew's Mary with total disrespect for her right to form her own view of the matter so as to give her the chance to agree or refuse. That's rape.
All morality is relative. It may be preferable that a child be raped than that a series of atom bombs planted under great cities be exploded, for instance. Choosing the lesser evil when there are no other options may be morally right.
Skeptics who comment on 'bible doctrines' have generally read what the bible actually says. This distinguishes them from most Christians.

And remember that the alternative to skepticism is gullibility. Gullibility is a favored target in commerce, politics, religion, advertising and much more.

Oh, and whose Y-chromosome did Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses have and how did each get it?

I disagree that Mary was raped.

I disagree that all morality is relative, much or most is, but there are clear absolutes in morality.

Did you know the blood on the Turin shroud is XX? Did you know that there XX men in medical literature?

BilliardsBall · Aug 7, 2019

blü 2 said:
Yes, regardless of the prophecies, if X was present when an apparently dead person came back to life, and wrote about it, that would be an eyewitness account. A summary, paraphrase, or retelling of that account would not be an eyewitness account ─ which is perhaps the point here. And of course the enormously more likely explanation would still be that the subject had not actually been dead. Other enormously more likely explanations include that the eyewitness was mistaken, deceived, lying or having a psychotic episode.

However, none of the six accounts of the resurrection in the NT is an eyewitness account, nor even pretends to be. Further, none is within two decades of the purported event, none is independent, and each contradicts the other five on important particulars.

There are more than six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, this is ridiculous on its face, and moot.

By the way, would YOU remember someone resurrected even "20 years later"? Do you see what a silly argument you've made?

BilliardsBall · Aug 7, 2019

shunyadragon said:
It still does not describe a first person witness author. Added editorial eyewitnesses is not indicated in the text.

I saw things amongst US.

I saw things others told me.

Which was in Luke's account again?

blü 2 · Aug 7, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I disagree that Mary was raped.

Then you don't know that rape is constituted by the absence of consent.

BilliardsBall said:
I disagree that all morality is relative, much or most is, but there are clear absolutes in morality.

So it's as clear as humanly possible that EITHER X is allowed to rape the child in the next two hours OR if he is prevented, but not otherwise, X will detonate an atom bomb under Mexico City.

Which is the moral choice?

BilliardsBall said:
Did you know the blood on the Turin shroud is XX? Did you know that there XX men in medical literature?

So, you say, Jesus had an intersex condition, being an XX male? Not a Christological view I've previously encountered, but for future conversations I'll note that's what you think.

Just to be clear, do you attribute the same intersex condition to the Jesuses of Paul, Mark and John, or only to Matthew's and Luke's?

And did you know that the Shroud of Turin is dated to the early Middle Ages?

gnostic · Aug 7, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
And if the prophecies revolved around someone rising from the dead after three days, and you saw them rise, and wrote about it, THAT would NOT be an eyewitness account?

They were written some 35-40 (gospel of Mark), 50-60 (Matthew’s and Luke’s) and 60-75 years later (John’s).

But needs I reminds you that these names (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) are not names of the actual authors to these 4 gospels. Those gospels were written anonymously, and no where near contemporary to the events of Jesus’ birth and Jesus’ ministry.

Those 4 names attached to the those 4 gospels respectively, are the real authors, because no one know who really wrote them. But the names we see attached to these 4 gospels, were given by the the 2nd century church, were really attributes, not the authors.

I used these names as matter of convenience, to distinguish one gospel from the others, but in no way do I think they were written by the names given.

Anyway, I don’t any of these were eyewitnesses’ accounts and definitely weren’t contemporary to the events as narrated.

Your errors are assuming they were written by the men traditionally claimed and accepted from the 2nd century church. The people you assumed to be “Matthew” and “John” to be Jesus’ apostles and to be authors, then why were these 2 gospels written so far later, and not shortly after Jesus’ death and alleged witnesses.

You mentioned death and resurrection event, and while all 4 gospels stated Mary Magdalene was there, the first ones to reach the tomb, whether she went there alone (in John 20), or with 1 (Matthew 28 mentioned “the other Mary”) or with 2 companions (Mark 16 says Mary mother of James and Salome, while Luke 20 says Joanne and Mary mother of James were Magdalene’s companions), they are not in agreement.

And that in gospels of Matthew and Luke, they spoke to all 11 surviving apostles, or only to Peter and unnamed disciple in John. And there 2 versions to Mark 16:8, the short version say they spoke to the 11 disciples, but the original verse says they informed no one because of their fear.

These conflicting details, tells me, that none of these authors were there at the time. And if these John and Matthew were really apostles and authors, then why is that minor details showed they are not in agreement?

And the conception-birth story from gospels of Matthew and Luke, which demonstrated the discrepancies of 2 sources, not only of each other, but with general timeline.

Neither authors could have been eyewitnesses, so they must be the authors’ inventions.

blü 2 · Aug 7, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
There are more than six accounts of the resurrection in the NT

I'm aware of Paul's 1 Corinthians 15, Mark 16 , Matthew 27:62 on, Luke 24, John 20, 21 and Acts 1:1-11. What else are you saying is an 'account' (as distinct from a mention) of the resurrection?

BilliardsBall said:
this is ridiculous on its face, and moot.

So you're unable to argue the point? Fair enough ─ if I were in your shoes, I couldn't either.

BilliardsBall said:
By the way, would YOU remember someone resurrected even "20 years later"?

Assuming there was an historical Jesus and assuming he was crucified in 30 CE then all we get after 23 years is Paul's ultra-lite 1 Corinthians 15 account. Not till after 45 years do we get Mark's version, the first shaped story. After maybe 55 years we get Matthew's and Luke's account. After 70 years we get John's and around that time we get the tale in Acts 1.

And as I keep pointing out to you, NONE OF THEM IS AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OR EVEN CLAIMS TO BE. So if the question is whether any eyewitness remembered the resurrection twenty years down the track, the answer is, we know of no such person.

BilliardsBall said:
Do you see what a silly argument you've made?

Do you see what a silly argument you've made?

shunyadragon · Aug 7, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I saw things amongst US.

I saw things others told me.

Which was in Luke's account again?

The statement in the context of the citation in Luke 'Seeing things amongst us' does not qualify one as an eyewitness, because he did not describe what what he saw amongst us. If you simply follow the history of early Christianity, Luke was a companion of Paul and not a witness to the life of Christ, which he wrote from what he learned from others like the writers of Matthew and Mark, and others that may or may not be eyewitnesses. Part of the text of Luke most definitely came from Mark and Matthew

Valjean · Aug 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Did you know the blood on the Turin shroud is XX? Did you know that there XX men in medical literature?

link? Significance?
What do you think the shroud has to do with Jesus?

BilliardsBall said:
There are more than six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, this is ridiculous on its face, and moot.

From the gospels:
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and another Mary came. There was an earthquake and an angel rolled away the stone and sat on it. The guards fainted, and the angel told the women Jesus had risen and would be found in Galilee, and that they should tell the disciples. They left. The disciples later met Jesus and worshiped Him.
Mark: Mary, Mary and Salome go to the tomb, find the stone rolled away and meet a young man inside who tells them Jesus is risen. He tells them to go tell the disciples they'll meet Jesus in Galilee. They ran off and were too frightened to tell anyone.
Jesus then began appearing to various people and groups, in various forms, but apparently He wasn't always recognized.
Luke: Mary, Mary, Joanna and other women went to the tomb with spices, found the stone gone, went in and found two men who told them Jesus was alive. They went back and told the disciples and others, who didn't believe them.
John: Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, saw the stone gone, ran off and told Simon Peter and another disciple. They ran back, saw the funeral linen in a pile. The disciples then went home. Mary was crying and looked into the tomb again and saw two angels. When she turned around she saw Jesus but she didn't recognize him till he said her name he said his name. She went and told the disciples that Jesus was alive.

These are different accounts of the same event.

BilliardsBall · Aug 8, 2019

blü 2 said:
Then you don't know that rape is constituted by the absence of consent.
So it's as clear as humanly possible that EITHER X is allowed to rape the child in the next two hours OR if he is prevented, but not otherwise, X will detonate an atom bomb under Mexico City.

Which is the moral choice?
So, you say, Jesus had an intersex condition, being an XX male? Not a Christological view I've previously encountered, but for future conversations I'll note that's what you think.

Just to be clear, do you attribute the same intersex condition to the Jesuses of Paul, Mark and John, or only to Matthew's and Luke's?

And did you know that the Shroud of Turin is dated to the early Middle Ages?

Was Mary's protestation, "you raped me"? Why or why not?

Do you not know the lesser of two evils is an evil?

Are you unaware the Middle Ages cloth contained the body of a 1st century Jewish victim of crucifixion?

BilliardsBall · Aug 8, 2019

blü 2 said:
I'm aware of Paul's 1 Corinthians 15, Mark 16 , Matthew 27:62 on, Luke 24, John 20, 21 and Acts 1:1-11. What else are you saying is an 'account' (as distinct from a mention) of the resurrection?
So you're unable to argue the point? Fair enough ─ if I were in your shoes, I couldn't either.
Assuming there was an historical Jesus and assuming he was crucified in 30 CE then all we get after 23 years is Paul's ultra-lite 1 Corinthians 15 account. Not till after 45 years do we get Mark's version, the first shaped story. After maybe 55 years we get Matthew's and Luke's account. After 70 years we get John's and around that time we get the tale in Acts 1.

And as I keep pointing out to you, NONE OF THEM IS AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OR EVEN CLAIMS TO BE. So if the question is whether any eyewitness remembered the resurrection twenty years down the track, the answer is, we know of no such person.
Do you see what a silly argument you've made?

Are you implying the reverse? That if we had six or more eyewitness accounts in the resurrection of Christ, that you would believe Jesus resurrected from the dead?

I don't mind arguing with you, I just want to know why we're arguing these things.

BilliardsBall · Aug 8, 2019

gnostic said:
They were written some 35-40 (gospel of Mark), 50-60 (Matthew’s and Luke’s) and 60-75 years later (John’s).

But needs I reminds you that these names (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) are not names of the actual authors to these 4 gospels. Those gospels were written anonymously, and no where near contemporary to the events of Jesus’ birth and Jesus’ ministry.

Those 4 names attached to the those 4 gospels respectively, are the real authors, because no one know who really wrote them. But the names we see attached to these 4 gospels, were given by the the 2nd century church, were really attributes, not the authors.

I used these names as matter of convenience, to distinguish one gospel from the others, but in no way do I think they were written by the names given.

Anyway, I don’t any of these were eyewitnesses’ accounts and definitely weren’t contemporary to the events as narrated.

Your errors are assuming they were written by the men traditionally claimed and accepted from the 2nd century church. The people you assumed to be “Matthew” and “John” to be Jesus’ apostles and to be authors, then why were these 2 gospels written so far later, and not shortly after Jesus’ death and alleged witnesses.

You mentioned death and resurrection event, and while all 4 gospels stated Mary Magdalene was there, the first ones to reach the tomb, whether she went there alone (in John 20), or with 1 (Matthew 28 mentioned “the other Mary”) or with 2 companions (Mark 16 says Mary mother of James and Salome, while Luke 20 says Joanne and Mary mother of James were Magdalene’s companions), they are not in agreement.

And that in gospels of Matthew and Luke, they spoke to all 11 surviving apostles, or only to Peter and unnamed disciple in John. And there 2 versions to Mark 16:8, the short version say they spoke to the 11 disciples, but the original verse says they informed no one because of their fear.

These conflicting details, tells me, that none of these authors were there at the time. And if these John and Matthew were really apostles and authors, then why is that minor details showed they are not in agreement?

And the conception-birth story from gospels of Matthew and Luke, which demonstrated the discrepancies of 2 sources, not only of each other, but with general timeline.

Neither authors could have been eyewitnesses, so they must be the authors’ inventions.

Are you implying the reverse? Would you believe the resurrection if you knew you had written eyewitness accounts of it? Otherwise, do you have a valid point here?

BilliardsBall · Aug 8, 2019

shunyadragon said:
The statement in the context of the citation in Luke 'Seeing thing amongst us' does not qualify one as an eyewitness, because he did not describe what what he saw amongst us. If you simply follow the history of early Christianity, Luke was a companion of Paul and not a witness to the life of Christ, which he wrote from what he learned from others like the writers of Matthew and Mark, and others that may or may not be eyewitnesses. Part of the text of Luke most definitely came from Mark and Matthew

Hold the phone!

The context of "I'm writing the things I've seen among us" is not "these are things I'm going to describe that I saw among us"?

BilliardsBall · Aug 8, 2019

Valjean said:
link? Significance?
What do you think the shroud has to do with Jesus?
From the gospels:
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and another Mary came. There was an earthquake and an angel rolled away the stone and sat on it. The guards fainted, and the angel told the women Jesus had risen and would be found in Galilee, and that they should tell the disciples. They left. The disciples later met Jesus and worshiped Him.
Mark: Mary, Mary and Salome go to the tomb, find the stone rolled away and meet a young man inside who tells them Jesus is risen. He tells them to go tell the disciples they'll meet Jesus in Galilee. They ran off and were too frightened to tell anyone.
Jesus then began appearing to various people and groups, in various forms, but apparently He wasn't always recognized.
Luke: Mary, Mary, Joanna and other women went to the tomb with spices, found the stone gone, went in and found two men who told them Jesus was alive. They went back and told the disciples and others, who didn't believe them.
John: Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, saw the stone gone, ran off and told Simon Peter and another disciple. They ran back, saw the funeral linen in a pile. The disciples then went home. Mary was crying and looked into the tomb again and saw two angels. When she turned around she saw Jesus but she didn't recognize him till he said her name he said his name. She went and told the disciples that Jesus was alive.

These are different accounts of the same event.

I think the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Good evidence available, if you're open to it. Objective evidence.

I think the resurrection accounts are easily harmonized. Subjective evidence.

Let's see which one you want to argue next.

TagliatelliMonster · Aug 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Are you implying the reverse? Would you believe the resurrection if you knew you had written eyewitness accounts of it? Otherwise, do you have a valid point here?

Would you believe people were abducted by aliens and had to undergo weird anal sexual experiments on board of their spaceships?

These people are actually still alive. You can go and talk to them. It doesn't get any more first hand then that, short of getting abducted yourself.

But you don't believe the claimed alien abductees, do you?

BilliardsBall · Aug 9, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Would you believe people were abducted by aliens and had to undergo weird anal sexual experiments on board of their spaceships?

These people are actually still alive. You can go and talk to them. It doesn't get any more first hand then that, short of getting abducted yourself.

But you don't believe the claimed alien abductees, do you?

So you disbelieve eyewitnesses or believe them based on what criteria?

TagliatelliMonster · Aug 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
So you disbelieve eyewitnesses or believe them based on what criteria?

You really can't answer this question yourself?
Why do you disbelieve the eyewtiness claims of alien abductees?

The criteria is simple: a combination of how outlandish their claims are on the one hand and the amount and quality of supportive evidence on the other.

If you tell me you saw a great movie last night, I'll likely won't require much more then that to accept your claim that you saw a movie. I don't require any extra ordinary assumptions for it. It's a very plausible and very probably claim.

If you proceed to tell me that during the movie the characters crawled out of the TV to have a chat with you and then returned into the tv to continue the movie, I'll just raise an eyebrow.

"testimony" are just claims. How credible the claims are, are directly dependend on the contents of said claim and what I need to assume in order to accept the claim.

You evaluate "eyewitness claims" in the exact same way. It is why you don't just believe alien abductees or bigfoot spotters on their mere word.

The real question, is rather why you don't uphold this same standard when it comes to mere claims relating to your specific religious beliefs. Especially considering that the mere claims of other religions are equally insufficient for you to believe....

gnostic · Aug 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Are you implying the reverse? Would you believe the resurrection if you knew you had written eyewitness accounts of it? Otherwise, do you have a valid point here?

If the names attributed to these gospels are the real names of these authors, and if Matthew and John were indeed the original apostles of Jesus, then why didn’t they write these gospels shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection (the event)? Why were these two gospels written some 50 to 70 years after the event?

Of all the books composed, the earliest works belonged to mostly Paul, which predated any composition of the 4 gospels.

Noticed that I wrote “mostly”, because not all his epistles were written by him, Hebrews, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not authentic his. The Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are also in dispute.

But my point is that these epistles were most written in the 50s, and a couple in the early 60s, all predated all gospels.

The oldest composition of the gospel is the gospel of Mark, between 65 and 75 CE. The gospel of John is far too old to be eyewitness account, as well as too unreliable.

And the gospels of Matthew and Luke are only little better, but still not eyewitnesses’ accounts. That is demonstrated in their completely different conception and birth myths of Jesus.

blü 2 · Aug 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Was Mary's protestation, "you raped me"? Why or why not?

The Lord looked upon Matthew's Mary and remarked to Gabriel, 'She's beggin' for it!' Gabe said, 'Aren't you going to ask?' The Lord replied, 'Ask, pask! Who's in charge here?' And he impregnated her without further thought.

That is, he proceeded without her consent.

That is, he raped her.

BilliardsBall said:
Do you not know the lesser of two evils is an evil?

By definition. But that wasn't the question. The question is, in that situation with only the two options possible, which choice should the moral person make?

What's the answer?

BilliardsBall said:
Are you implying the reverse? That if we had six or more eyewitness accounts in the resurrection of Christ, that you would believe Jesus resurrected from the dead?

Consistently with what I've already said: if we had six independent eyewitness accounts of a person thought to be some 36-48 hours dead who came back to life ─ that would mean they were present at the moment of resurrection ─, and the reports were reasonably consistent, then I'd take it as likely that the event had occurred and that the person had not actually been dead.

But of course even if we assume that there was an historical Jesus and that he was crucified, we have not a single contemporary mention of such a thing, not a single eyewitness account, just some sketchy mentions twenty years later (Paul is explicit that he never met the historical Jesus, and that everything he says about Jesus comes out of his own head), the first elaborated story 45 years later (Mark's gospel can be mapped bit by bit onto scattered parts of the Tanakh, but not onto history), and differing versions of Mark 55 years and 70 years later. And of course each of the stories contradicts the rest on major points. And of course each is written by a member of a religious faction, no hint of independence.

BilliardsBall said:
I don't mind arguing with you, I just want to know why we're arguing these things.

To make the point that the evidence for the resurrection as a fact of history is, for the reasons I've stated and iterated, of abysmal quality, not at all credible.

And we're arguing because you don't wish to concede the point, even though you've offered nothing to refute it.

We still need to clear up Jesus' chromosomal status. You've said that the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were intersex XX males.

The question that needs to be clarified is, do you think the Jesuses of Paul, Mark and John (or any of them) were also intersex XX males?

If not, what were they? In particular, if they were normal XY males, whose Y-chromosome did they have?

BilliardsBall · Aug 12, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
You really can't answer this question yourself?
Why do you disbelieve the eyewtiness claims of alien abductees?

The criteria is simple: a combination of how outlandish their claims are on the one hand and the amount and quality of supportive evidence on the other.

If you tell me you saw a great movie last night, I'll likely won't require much more then that to accept your claim that you saw a movie. I don't require any extra ordinary assumptions for it. It's a very plausible and very probably claim.

If you proceed to tell me that during the movie the characters crawled out of the TV to have a chat with you and then returned into the tv to continue the movie, I'll just raise an eyebrow.

"testimony" are just claims. How credible the claims are, are directly dependend on the contents of said claim and what I need to assume in order to accept the claim.

You evaluate "eyewitness claims" in the exact same way. It is why you don't just believe alien abductees or bigfoot spotters on their mere word.

The real question, is rather why you don't uphold this same standard when it comes to mere claims relating to your specific religious beliefs. Especially considering that the mere claims of other religions are equally insufficient for you to believe....

Then we're settled, the Bible includes independent verification, fulfilled prophecy and historical accuracy.

BilliardsBall · Aug 12, 2019

gnostic said:
If the names attributed to these gospels are the real names of these authors, and if Matthew and John were indeed the original apostles of Jesus, then why didn’t they write these gospels shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection (the event)? Why were these two gospels written some 50 to 70 years after the event?

Of all the books composed, the earliest works belonged to mostly Paul, which predated any composition of the 4 gospels.

Noticed that I wrote “mostly”, because not all his epistles were written by him, Hebrews, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not authentic his. The Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are also in dispute.

But my point is that these epistles were most written in the 50s, and a couple in the early 60s, all predated all gospels.

The oldest composition of the gospel is the gospel of Mark, between 65 and 75 CE. The gospel of John is far too old to be eyewitness account, as well as too unreliable.

And the gospels of Matthew and Luke are only little better, but still not eyewitnesses’ accounts. That is demonstrated in their completely different conception and birth myths of Jesus.

What bearing does knowing the authorship have on whether we believe the supernatural accounts within? Why are we arguing this?

Dating gospels to say, 75 CE, makes no difference. I can remember what I wore to my own wedding, what I ate, what I said and did--why would you or I mis-remember seeing the Christ resurrected 40 years later? Straw man argument.

How much do we know?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member