How much do we know?

[shunyadragon]

So if you saw prophecies fulfilled in your presence, that is NOT eyewitness accounting? (scratches head).

No, because the question is whether the record of the events are first person. Claims of prophecies then and know are anecdotal interpretations of scripture, of which there are many conflicting interpretations of prophecies. Many Hebrews, of course interpretate the prophecies very differently.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if you saw prophecies fulfiled in your presence, that is NOT eyewitness accounting? (scratches head).

No. that would be my interpretation of those prophesies, nothing less, and nothing more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your god made certain kinds of ducks to mate by rape.

Your god ordered mass rape in the OT. You'll remember it was a very jolly occasion:

Numbers 31:9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. [...] 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army [...] who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.​

Your god even wrote rules for the raping of female slaves.

Who's wrong here, you or your god?

God does not condone rape in the Bible. God does not condone atheism in the Bible. God allows man free will. God will judge later. These four statements together address your argument.

Of course, you left off the way the women were to be treated following their captivity. The mourning period for the dead. Their heads shaved, making them undesirable as wives for months and years until their hair grew back. Their full inclusion in Israel, the mercy shown them--the other tribes would execute them, rape them while the husbands watched before executing the husbands, etc.

Rape is an absolute evil--of course, you address the Bible you hate so much instead of my statement. Is it an absolute evil or no? I've had family members who've been raped. Please consider carefully before answering!

 

[shunyadragon]

God does not condone rape in the Bible. God does not condone atheism in the Bible. God allows man free will. God will judge later. These four statements together address your argument.

Of course, you left off the way the women were to be treated following their captivity. The mourning period for the dead. Their heads shaved, making them undesirable as wives for months and years until their hair grew back. Their full inclusion in Israel, the mercy shown them--the other tribes would execute them, rape them while the husbands watched before executing the husbands, etc.

Rape is an absolute evil--of course, you address the Bible you hate so much instead of my statement. Is it an absolute evil or no? I've had family members who've been raped. Please consider carefully before answering!

This idealistic view does not reflect the actual citations from the OT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. that would be my interpretation of those prophesies, nothing less, and nothing more.

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?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, because the question is whether the record of the events are first person. Claims of prophecies then and know are anecdotal interpretations of scripture, of which there are many conflicting interpretations of prophecies. Many Hebrews, of course interpretate the prophecies very differently.

The writer of Luke said he saw things AMONG US--that is, he and his scribal writer were eyewitnesses, which has nothing to do with prophecy fulfillment.

 

[shunyadragon]

The writer of Luke said he saw things AMONG US--that is, he and his scribal writer were eyewitnesses, which has nothing to do with prophecy fulfillment.

There is no evidence that the writer of Luke was a witness of the life of Christ. 'Seeing things amongst us' is too vague to be a testimony of a witness of the events and life of Jesus Christ at the time he lived. In fact the evidence is clear that Luke is a later gospel than Matthew and Mark. and the author is unknown. Tradition believes it was written by a companion of Paul,. The fact is the gospel is not internally described as being written by a witness of the life of Christ, but refers to others as the sources as witnesses of the life of Christ.

Like Paul, the author of Luke had only second hand knowledge of the events and life of Jesus Christ.

From: Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke?

The answer seems obvious: a man named Luke, of course. But do we really know this, and, if so, how? The gospel itself never reveals the author’s name. The title “The Gospel According to Luke”—printed in virtually every Christian Bible today—is late: We have no evidence that it appeared on the earliest versions of the gospel.

Over the centuries, numerous traditions have evolved around this somewhat shadowy evangelist: Luke is credited with writing not only his gospel but the New Testament Book of Acts as well. He was, according to tradition, a physician and a friend of Paul’s, and he is described as a gentile writing for a gentile audience. The textual evidence suggests that these stories are very early, dating to the first and second century. By the fourth century, these traditions were well enough established to be summarized by the historian Eusebius and the church father Jerome (see the second sidebar to this article). Still later, Luke was depicted as a portrait painter whose most famous subject was the Virgin Mary herself. These traditions—with further embellishments—continued throughout the Middle Ages.

But how have these traditions withstood both the test of time and the critical eye of modern biblical scholarship? In the opening lines of his gospel, Luke offers his own explanation of why he began to write:

 

[blü 2]

God does not condone rape in the Bible.

You mean, "God ought not to condone rape in the bible, let alone order it and let alone make rules about how to do it as we find Him doing". God orders rape in the bible. I quoted you the passage. Matthew's Mary is raped by the Holy Spirit, never given the chance to consent or refuse to be impregnated by God.

God does not condone atheism in the Bible.

In the bible God orders that people be put to death because they worship gods other than Him. He's the No. 1 offender when the crime is intolerance regarding religion.

God allows man free will.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, perfect and the creator of the universe?

Does it not follow that before God made the universe [he] perfectly knew everything was ever going to happen in the universe from Big Bang to finish, including every thought, word, deed, you'll ever have? And that we can therefore conclude everything, whether it seems to us good, bad, neutral or irrelevant, is happening exactly as [he] always knew it would and wished it to?

God will judge later.

No, God must have judged before [he] made the universe. God is also omnipresent, so simultaneously with watching you read this [he]'s present throughout the future, and [he] remembers exactly what happened all those tens, and thousands, and billions of years ago.

God does not condone rape in the Bible. Of course, you left off the way the women were to be treated following their captivity.

Silly me! And here I was thinking it was a nasty rape, when as rapes go, it was a lovely one, an empathetic forcing, a merciful penetration, a violent overriding of the victim's will done in the kindest way and warmly wrapped up in the best of intentions!

Sheesh.

 

[Valjean]

So if you saw prophecies fulfiled in your presence, that is NOT eyewitness accounting? (scratches head).

My relating the actions I saw would be a first person account. My assessment of them -- their causes, significance, purpose, &c -- would be speculation.

Do you have any evidence that any NT writer was lying about any statement they made anywhere in the NT, other than a non-supernatural bias?

I don't, but you imply that if they were "not lying," their narratives and interpretations were, perforce, true.

Most ancient narratives aren't journalism. Authors weren't trying to get the 5-Ws perfectly correct. They reported their sense of the thing, and their interpretation. This technical inaccuracy was understood. They were not "lies."

Others, I'm sure, fervently believed their narratives. Religious delusion is a very common psychopathology.

People are pattern-seekers, and some carry this trait to delusional extremes.
If there are no patterns, we create them. We see connexions and meaning where there are none -- and the literary amongst us are sometimes moved to write these down.

Do you have any evidence that Muhammad, or Lao Dse, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh were lying?

 

[shunyadragon]

My relating the actions I saw would be a first person account. My assessment of them -- their causes, significance, purpose, &c -- would be speculation.
I don't, but you imply that if they were "not lying," their narratives and interpretations were, perforce, true.

Most ancient narratives aren't journalism. Authors weren't trying to get the 5-Ws perfectly correct. They reported their sense of the thing, and their interpretation. This technical inaccuracy was understood. They were not "lies."

Others, I'm sure, fervently believed their narratives. Religious delusion is a very common psychopathology.

People are pattern-seekers, and some carry this trait to delusional extremes.
If there are no patterns, we create them. We see connexions and meaning where there are none -- and the literary amongst us are sometimes moved to write these down.

Agreed their testimony reflected their personal observations, beliefs, and events in their life. It did not reflect first personal observations of events and the life of Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no evidence that the writer of Luke was a witness of the life of Christ. 'Seeing things amongst us' is too vague to be a testimony of a witness of the events and life of Jesus Christ at the time he lived. In fact the evidence is clear that Luke is a later gospel than Matthew and Mark. and the author is unknown. Tradition believes it was written by a companion of Paul,. The fact is the gospel is not internally described as being written by a witness of the life of Christ, but refers to others as the sources as witnesses of the life of Christ.

Like Paul, the author of Luke had only second hand knowledge of the events and life of Jesus Christ.

From: Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke?

The answer seems obvious: a man named Luke, of course. But do we really know this, and, if so, how? The gospel itself never reveals the author’s name. The title “The Gospel According to Luke”—printed in virtually every Christian Bible today—is late: We have no evidence that it appeared on the earliest versions of the gospel.

Over the centuries, numerous traditions have evolved around this somewhat shadowy evangelist: Luke is credited with writing not only his gospel but the New Testament Book of Acts as well. He was, according to tradition, a physician and a friend of Paul’s, and he is described as a gentile writing for a gentile audience. The textual evidence suggests that these stories are very early, dating to the first and second century. By the fourth century, these traditions were well enough established to be summarized by the historian Eusebius and the church father Jerome (see the second sidebar to this article). Still later, Luke was depicted as a portrait painter whose most famous subject was the Virgin Mary herself. These traditions—with further embellishments—continued throughout the Middle Ages.

But how have these traditions withstood both the test of time and the critical eye of modern biblical scholarship? In the opening lines of his gospel, Luke offers his own explanation of why he began to write:

In those opening lines, he says he interviewed other eyewitnesses. He was an eyewitness. Most of the rest of your post is moot--I don't care if you call the third gospel "Luke" but the opening lines describe an eyewitness account.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean, "God ought not to condone rape in the bible, let alone order it and let alone make rules about how to do it as we find Him doing". God orders rape in the bible. I quoted you the passage. Matthew's Mary is raped by the Holy Spirit, never given the chance to consent or refuse to be impregnated by God.
In the bible God orders that people be put to death because they worship gods other than Him. He's the No. 1 offender when the crime is intolerance regarding religion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, perfect and the creator of the universe?

Does it not follow that before God made the universe [he] perfectly knew everything was ever going to happen in the universe from Big Bang to finish, including every thought, word, deed, you'll ever have? And that we can therefore conclude everything, whether it seems to us good, bad, neutral or irrelevant, is happening exactly as [he] always knew it would and wished it to?
No, God must have judged before [he] made the universe. God is also omnipresent, so simultaneously with watching you read this [he]'s present throughout the future, and [he] remembers exactly what happened all those tens, and thousands, and billions of years ago.
Silly me! And here I was thinking it was a nasty rape, when as rapes go, it was a lovely one, an empathetic forcing, a merciful penetration, a violent overriding of the victim's will done in the kindest way and warmly wrapped up in the best of intentions!

Sheesh.

God and Mary had intercourse? Are you a lapsed Mormon?

Mary was excited to have the Messiah--her whole generation was looking for the Messiah to be born of a woman per prophecy.

I think what you're trying to say is that Mary's was an unwanted pregnancy, which is not the Bible record.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My relating the actions I saw would be a first person account. My assessment of them -- their causes, significance, purpose, &c -- would be speculation.


I don't, but you imply that if they were "not lying," their narratives and interpretations were, perforce, true.

Most ancient narratives aren't journalism. Authors weren't trying to get the 5-Ws perfectly correct. They reported their sense of the thing, and their interpretation. This technical inaccuracy was understood. They were not "lies."

Others, I'm sure, fervently believed their narratives. Religious delusion is a very common psychopathology.

People are pattern-seekers, and some carry this trait to delusional extremes.
If there are no patterns, we create them. We see connexions and meaning where there are none -- and the literary amongst us are sometimes moved to write these down.

Do you have any evidence that Muhammad, or Lao Dse, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh were lying?

Yes on the four above. No on many historical Bible accuracies equals 40 authors in a 1,500 year conspiracy.

 

[shunyadragon]

In those opening lines, he says he interviewed other eyewitnesses. He was an eyewitness. Most of the rest of your post is moot--I don't care if you call the third gospel "Luke" but the opening lines describe an eyewitness account.

No, as in law, interviewing a witness, or testifying what another said is not an eye witness. This is at best is 'Second hand knowledge by definition.

Luke's opening line indicates simply that many have undertaken to draw up an account, and no reference to first hand eye witness..

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

 

[blü 2]

God and Mary had intercourse? Are you a lapsed Mormon?

Jesus wasn't a real human because he didn't begin in utero as real humans do, by the merging of the spermatozoon and the ovum to form the zygote?

Jesus had someone else's Y-chromosome than God's?

Set out specifically what you say happened instead.

Mary was excited to have the Messiah--

Matthew's Mary was raped ─ at no time was her consent sought.


Anyway, you still haven't produced an example of an absolute statement. Do you want to try again, or are you conceding the point?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, as in law, interviewing a witness, or testifying what another said is not an eye witness. This is at best is 'Second hand knowledge by definition.

Luke's opening line indicates simply that many have undertaken to draw up an account, and no reference to first hand eye witness..

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

You understand it as: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among OTHERS [somewhere between hearsay and skilled documenting of facts, the way police, judges and historians attempt to conduct interviews]

I read again, just now: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among US [eyewitnesses]

Yet again and again, I hear from people against the Bible that THEY read it without undue bias.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus wasn't a real human because he didn't begin in utero as real humans do, by the merging of the spermatozoon and the ovum to form the zygote?

Jesus had someone else's Y-chromosome than God's?

Set out specifically what you say happened instead.
Matthew's Mary was raped ─ at no time was her consent sought.


Anyway, you still haven't produced an example of an absolute statement. Do you want to try again, or are you conceding the point?

An omniscient being, knowing Mary would be delighted, incarnated the Christ in her. If your spouse says you can start the fooling around process while she/he sleeps, is that rape? Of course not.

As an absolute statement, rape is always wrong. Sexually abusing children is always wrong. Skeptics are always wrong about most Bible doctrines.

 

[blü 2]

An omniscient being, knowing Mary would be delighted, incarnated the Christ in her. If your spouse says you can start the fooling around process while she/he sleeps, is that rape? Of course not.

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.

As an absolute statement, rape is always wrong. Sexually abusing children is always wrong.

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 are always wrong about most Bible doctrines.

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?

 

[shunyadragon]

You understand it as: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among OTHERS [somewhere between hearsay and skilled documenting of facts, the way police, judges and historians attempt to conduct interviews]

I read again, just now: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among US [eyewitnesses]

Yet again and again, I hear from people against the Bible that THEY read it without undue bias.

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

 

[blü 2]

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?

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.