There Is No God

robtex · Feb 7, 2005

Way to sidestep the 7 points I made. The Gospels were written about 25 years after the incident. That does not qualify as a primary source. So are you going to address any of the points or just make cute pointless comments?

The fact of the matter is that since nobody has ever been resurrected in the history of mankind, Jesus included, if 500 people had actually seen that many people would have flocked to the new religion immediatly not 25 years later when Paul got around to making this silly story up.

Paul claims to have witnessed it but doesn't convert until the chapter of Acts. That is kinda odd since he followed Jesus BEFORE he was crucified according to his own account. Either Paul is lying in Acts or he is lying in the parts of the Bible before Jesus was crucified. He accepted him as God on earth before he is resurrected but denies if afterwards? That is an absurd set of statements.

robtex · Feb 7, 2005

you elongated your post since i typed my reply i have to read the new one.

No*s · Feb 7, 2005

Rob,

There are a couple of points I dispute in here.

robtex said:
2) In Corinithians 1 chapter 15 the author claims there were 500 witness to this event.

3) Paul didn't write a word of the Bible until 58 A.D.

4) Paul didn't convert his Judiasm until the was on the road to Damacus in Acts 9:9

5) No other witness of the supposed 500 ever came forward to collaborate the Bible's claim

The 500 witnesses were an appeal in Paul's day for support. Do you suppose that he did this, so that they would go and find out there weren't any eyewitnesses? Paul would have had to be one heck of a con-artist there.

Robtex said:
7) Paul upon his "witnessing " of it didn't convert until years later and than didn't bother to record that convesion until decades later

But nobody claimed Paul as an eyewitness. He is a secondary witness.

Robtex said:
That to me equals no eyewitness and no primary sources for the supposed resurrection.

Before categorically declaring there are "no eyewitness and no primary sources for the supposed resurrection," could you demonstrate how I am in error in citing the Gospel of Matthew?

robtex · Feb 7, 2005

No*s said:
Rob,
There are a couple of points I dispute in here.

The 500 witnesses were an appeal in Paul's day for support. Do you suppose that he did this, so that they would go and find out there weren't any eyewitnesses? Paul would have had to be one heck of a con-artist there.

But nobody claimed Paul as an eyewitness. He is a secondary witness.

Before categorically declaring there are "no eyewitness and no primary sources for the supposed resurrection," could you demonstrate how I am in error in citing the Gospel of Matthew?

No* I am disputing the 500 witness cause they never came forward. I don't see it as realistic that 500 people could watch a once-in-a-lifetime event and nobody bother to bring it up again orally or in print. If some of them had come forward it would have looked better for the arguement of Jesus return to life.

I understand about Paul being a secondary witness, but he was at the last supper and by his own accord told about the resurrection after the fact (secondary witness). He was a follower of Jesus before but than rejected him after? It doesn't add up in a book of non-fiction.

I am lost on on your gospel of Matthew citiation. Could you please repost it and clarify how it applies ?

angellous_evangellous · Feb 7, 2005

robtex said:
Way to sidestep the 7 points I made. The Gospels were written about 25 years after the incident. That does not qualify as a primary source.

The Gospels qualify as primary sources. Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, Luke by the testimony of witnesses (he also spent some time with the apostles in Jerusalem). I sidesteped your points because I did not see value in them, as addressed by No*s above. Apparently you ignored or disregarded my previous arguments, which I will not repeat. We were never talking about the resurrection, which is what your seven points addressed. If you like, we can discuss that on another post. I will not discuss it here, as it detracts from our current discussion.

No*s · Feb 7, 2005

robtex said:
No* I am disputing the 500 witness cause they never came forward. I don't see it as realistic that 500 people could watch a once-in-a-lifetime event and nobody bother to bring it up again orally or in print. If some of them had come forward it would have looked better for the arguement of Jesus return to life.

OK. I thought it was an argument against any eyewitnesses. My apologies Rob.

robtex said:
I understand about Paul being a secondary witness, but he was at the last supper and by his own accord told about the resurrection after the fact (secondary witness). He was a follower of Jesus before but than rejected him after? It doesn't add up in a book of non-fiction.

Actually, he wasn't at the last supper, nor was he a follower of Jesus that rejected him. He actually began persecution of Christians later and converted later. He never even saw Christ until the road on Damascus.

robtex said:
I am lost on on your gospel of Matthew citiation. Could you please repost it and clarify how it applies ?

Post #36 in this thread. If my argument holds, we have a Gospel written by one of Jesus' disciples who witnessed nearly everything, unlike Mark (St. Mark's summary of St. Peter's statements), Luke, or John (The Apostle John wrote in a semi-apocalyptic manner...I simply do not cite it in discussions like this for history).

While it doesn't pertain directly to your discussion of Paul, it does establish that Matthew can be counted as a primary source, and it further corroborates the synoptic tradition as being relatively stable. There are other synoptic-style Gospels attested in the Fathers.

SoulTYPE · Feb 7, 2005

angellous_evangellous said:
It looks like you are saying that if we choose to believe in a god, then there is a god. So we create the god, and the god's existence is dependent upon our belief.

Exactly.

angellous_evangellous said:
So whatever we believe is true, and we can continually reshape and redefine god as we see fit.

It is true within ourselves, and no we cannot reshape God as we see fit.

angellous_evangellous · Feb 7, 2005

SoulTYPE01 said:
Exactly.

It is true within ourselves, and no we cannot reshape God as we see fit.

How can you show both sides of this statement to be mutually exclusive? That is, if it is true within ourselves, and we change our minds, how is the truth not changed? How can something be abiding within us (unchangable) while our experiences and rationale can continually be influenced and changed?

Shape me something nice.

SoulTYPE · Feb 7, 2005

angellous_evangellous said:
How can you show both sides of this statement to be mutually exclusive? That is, if it is true within ourselves, and we change our minds, how is the truth not changed? How can something be abiding within us (unchangable) while our experiences and rationale can continually be influenced and changed?

Shape me something nice.

I'm not suprised my words were jumbled up. It happens a lot in this part of the board, half of it is my fault.

I was stupid and assumed that this thread was based towards THE God, the God of the Christuans belief.

I mean that the Christian God is unchangable. Our experiences changed or influenced by the Christian God, should we believe in Him.

I'll shape something nice in a minute.

angellous_evangellous · Feb 7, 2005

SoulTYPE01 said:
I'm not suprised my words were jumbled up. It happens a lot in this part of the board, half of it is my fault.

I was stupid and assumed that this thread was based towards THE God, the God of the Christuans belief.

I mean that the Christian God is unchangable. Our experiences changed or influenced by the Christian God, should we believe in Him.

I'll shape something nice in a minute.

Thanks very much for the clarification. You still are not making any sense. Our experiences can be changed or shaped by anything, and we have so little to help us understand what is effecting us. We have science, philosophy, and religion to help us along, but not much can help us catagorically conclude what God is doing in our hearts. For example, how would you help us know when God is affecting us or when we have heartburn, or are simply just confused about life (or going insane)?

However, I sense that your intentions are to encourage peace. Therefore, the warm and fussy feeling is again refreshed. Please post often. :162:

Pah · Feb 7, 2005

angellous_evangellous said:
Excellent, I am glad that you made these points. Most of us will remember that the synpotic Gospels are dated between AD 50-65, with John a little later. The letters of Paul were all written between AD 50 and 72.

Add twenty years (at least) to get into the ballpark for the date of the Gospels

Interesting that the fathers are quoting them as a whole and confirming that the writings agree with what they were taught. Paul is a valid witness- he was confirmed and comissioned by the eyewitnesses.

Paul is only witnerss to a risen Christ and adds nothing to an historical Jesus. PAUL IS NOT A witness to any of the events in the Gospels. That's scriptual and you have no excuse not to know that

There are many valid theories concerning why it took twenty years or so for the Gospels to be written. I think that there were two reasons: 1) they thought that Jesus was coming back soon and 2) they were busy doing the work that they were commissioned to do, that is, spreading the Gospel by mouth.

Theory being a key word here. But,well let me tell ya - that does as much to destroy the inspiration of God's words as anything I have heard out of a mouth of a Christian. It also brings into play a justifiable denial of God's foreknowledge and God's trust in reveling the truth to those in the very early cult.

No*s · Feb 7, 2005

pah said:
angellous_evangellous said:

Excellent, I am glad that you made these points. Most of us will remember that the synpotic Gospels are dated between AD 50-65, with John a little later. The letters of Paul were all written between AD 50 and 72.

Click to expand...

Add twenty years (at least) to get into the ballpark for the date of the Gospels

And, how is it you can state this as a fact?

The dating of the Gospels is controversial. The bulk of opinion in scholarship dates the Synoptics in the 60s and 70s. I'm a bit more conservative than them. However, we can find a few who will date them to either the area AE specified or to the area you specified.

Since it is a controversial dating, I don't think "scholars say" without any reference to who said it, or to how they came to their conclusions, is going to settle the issue.

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 7, 2005

No*s said:
The dating of the Gospels is controversial. The bulk of opinion in scholarship dates the Synoptics in the 60s and 70s.

You mean, of course, that Christian apologetics "dates the Synoptics in the 60s and 70s". I suspect that Kirby's EarlyChristianWritings.com is a far more accurate description of current scholarship. Also of exceptional value is Udo Schnelle and Koester.

No*s · Feb 7, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
You mean, of course, that Christian apologetics "dates the Synoptics in the 60s and 70s". I suspect that Kirby's EarlyChristianWritings.com is a far more accurate description of current scholarship. Also of exceptional value is Udo Schnelle and Koester.

So, basically, the way this works is that if the scholars disagree with the dating you prefer, they do so simply for "Christian apologetics?" What that does, in effect, is disregard the opinions of whole classes of scholarship and remove them from the realm of consideration.

The fact that your site dates the Secret Gospel of Mark between 70 and 160 is very telling to me, when we consider that we don't have any evidence to corroborat the claim.

Now, I'm not averse to reading more information, but I think that since this is a debate on the forum, you should tell me why you find their dating more convincing than others.

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 7, 2005

No*s said:
So, basically, the way this works is that if the scholars disagree with the dating you prefer, they do so simply for "Christian apologetics?"

No, the way this apparently works is that you make an assertion about "the bulk of opinion" and assume no responsibility for substantiating it.

Pah · Feb 7, 2005

No*s said:
And, how is it you can state this as a fact?

It seemed appropiate since I was correcting something that was given as if it were fact.

The dating of the Gospels is controversial. The bulk of opinion in scholarship dates the Synoptics in the 60s and 70s. I'm a bit more conservative than them. However, we can find a few who will date them to either the area AE specified or to the area you specified.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

* Matthew: c. 70100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Mark: c. 6873
* Luke: c. 80100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

Since I said twenty years later than angellous_evangellous provided (50-65) that seems to be reasonable.

Josh McDowell gives two sets of dates - (conservative [50 - 80 earliest dates of authorship] and liberal 70-90 [ealiest dates] and latest dates of authorship of 60-100 and 70-100 respectively) Source: New Evidence I & II, page 52

There is disparity in the scholarship but it all seems to contradict that given by angellous_evangellous

linwood · Feb 7, 2005

Since you are unable to provide the text from which you pull the quote (you say that it is from a discussion that you do not have quoting a book that you do not have), I suggest that it may have come from the discussion at

No, that is not what I said what I said was...

"I recieved the quote and portions of Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica & Praeparatio Evangelica awhile back in a text file from a friend when researching Josephus` Testimonium Flavianum ."

I have been unable to find a similar translation in my copy of Eusebius.

Thats too bad.

Indeed in the discussion that is available at the above URL, they confirm that this quote is not found in Robert's translation of Eusebius (or any other for that matter).

I suggest you re-read the site you posted because it does not at all vconfirm the inaccuracy of the quote I gave but supports its validty.
The site does not say what you say it says.

After a careful reading of the full text, I am sure that you must retract your usage of this quote. It really carries no weight in our discussion.

With all due respect I must insist it is not I who is not reading carefully.

The quote does carry weight in this discussion considering you have cited Eusebius as a reliable source for validity of Josephus` Testimonium Flavianum

CONCLUSION

The 'quotation' seems to be a fraud, although it is not necessary to suppose deliberate dishonesty at any stage - merely a willingness to take a statement in the worst way or to believe the worst.

I would suggest you re-read the very web site you posted.

The conclusion it is speaking of in the quote you posted is not regarding the quote I posted.
In fact it supports the quote I gave you.

The sites conclusion is regarding this quote..
"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed
all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book
12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

The above quote in blue does not exist, it is a lie.
That is the quote the site you posted made its conclusion of.

How did the statement get manufactured? We cannot know all the steps, but we can guess easily enough.

As we have seen, Gibbon's statements do not tie up much with what Eusebius wrote.

I did not quote Gibbons version, I quoted Giffords.

My statement stands as written.

Roberts is excellent, and available for free online.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2

Thank you.

No*s · Feb 7, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
No, the way this apparently works is that you make an assertion about "the bulk of opinion" and assume no responsibility for substantiating it.

I find it interesting that you would argue simply that you must "assume no responsibility for substantiating" your opinion. I am the only one in this thread to have actually proposed a model for dating the Gospels in this thread. I made an assertion. Angellous_evangellous continued with the argument. Pah countered with "a fact." I challenged the assumption. You are challenging my challenge. I have asked repeatedly before this assertion for someone to address the argument.

Why should I assume a burden of proof of walking down to the library to get books on inter-library loan when the other side has yet to cite one fact for their view on the dates? No arguments are being made, just assertions.

I have a poverty of books on me at the moment, but I do have some. I can name Summers' commentary on Luke dating it in the 70s. This places Mark back earlier. It was the consensus in his day. I can name Stein, who is an extremely conservative scholar, but he dates it also to the same area (and makes the same assertion).

There is a disparity of dates between "conservative" and "liberal" scholars (with more in the former camp, as is usually the case). I suspect we both know this to be the case.

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 7, 2005

No*s said:
Why should I assume a burden of proof ...

Because you made the assertion. At this point in the discussion I am far more interested in seeing you validate your assertion that "The bulk of opinion in scholarship dates the Synoptics in the 60s and 70s."

So, for example, the NAB introduction to Matthew notes:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

- see New American Bible: Matthew; Introduction - emphasis added

So, again, please substantiate your assertion as to "The bulk of opinion in scholarship".

No*s · Feb 7, 2005

pah said:
No*s said:

And, how is it you can state this as a fact?

Click to expand...

It seemed appropiate since I was correcting something that was given as if it were fact.

Actually, we do have arguments in this thread for an earlier date for the Gospels, and it included the fact that the dating of the Synoptics was not a fact. Up until just now, we haven't had so much as the beginning of such an attempt for the opposite view. In fact, arguments for the argument for an earlier dating was simply ignored.

Since an argument had already been made, did angellous_evangellous need to repeat it? I wouldn't think so. Threads would get even more tedious than this one if we all had to make arguments that had already been made by someone else.

pah said:
Since I said twenty years later than angellous_evangellous provided (50-65) that seems to be reasonable.

Josh McDowell gives two sets of dates - (conservative [50 - 80 earliest dates of authorship] and liberal 70-90 [ealiest dates] and latest dates of authorship of 60-100 and 70-100 respectively) Source: New Evidence I & II, page 52

There is disparity in the scholarship but it all seems to contradict that given by angellous_evangellous

Thank you. That was much better. I appreciate the construction of an argument that can be discussed. My hat is off to Linwood in this discussion, for this reason.

What I find interesting is that there are a number of conservative scholars who argue for a pre-70 date. I will definately recheck things, but the impression I got from the scholars I've encountered is exactly the opposite: that there is a conservative dating of Mark (this is using the Two-Source Hypothesis) that dates Mark to the sixties, Matthew shortly after it, and so on. More liberal scholars place it further back, until you finally get to the people who want to push it into the second century.

It is also true that much of my material is older (by neccessity).

Again, thank you for finally beginning to do this.

There Is No God

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Captain Obvious

Veteran Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Uber all member

Captain Obvious

-- untitled --

Captain Obvious

-- untitled --

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

-- untitled --

Captain Obvious