Redemption: Being saved or born again

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And Noah's ARK was found on Mt Ararat!!!

JimlL surely you know that is ARKeology! It goes hand in hand with Pyramidiocy

[JimL]

JimlL surely you know that is ARKeology! It goes hand in hand with Pyramidiocy

LOL!! ARKeology.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

LOL!! ARKeology.

[Sparko]

You wrote this.

You are simply wrong and taking the opinion of critics of the bible.

Yup. And that is true. Prove me wrong.

Show me using attested historical evidence where I am wrong.

Too much to even start. Even your use of "attested" historical evidence. What you actually mean is "historical evidence that I agree with"

The first textual evidence for the books you now have in your New Testament comes from a Festal letter by Athanasius, dated to 367 CE/

The canon was put together at a much later date. Please don't tell me you think that the books that now make up your NT were in one volume in the late first century?

So what? Putting the books together into one volume can only happen if the books existed before that. They were taking the books and letters that Christians had been using since the beginning and making them one official volume, while rejecting the various psuedo gospels and epistles. They knew which books were real and which were fake and they took steps to ensure that future generations would not be fooled by them

No physical evidence because the corpses were generally left to rot and be scavenged, with the remains eventually dumped into a pit. Crucifixion was not a high status death.

You are still missing the point. All we had were written accounts of Crucifixion until then. You keep trying to claim that written documents are not trustworthy. Yet here we have an example of written documents being confirmed later by physical evidence. Can you name any physical archeological evidence found that contradicts the accounts in the NT?

Suetonius also writes of the incident and he was a contemporary of Plutarch, albeit slightly younger. No one disputes the account may be embellished with internal details, such was the style of ancient biography but given the problems of piracy in the Mediterranean in the early first century BCE it is not an unlikely event. Pompey the Great cleared the region of pirates in 67 CE

And yet you accept an account written 1000 years after the event as even plausible. Why? Because you want to. Historians also accept it because there is no evidence to contradict it. As I said written historical documents are accepted unless there is some compelling reason to reject it as true.

The fact is that we have no extraneous contemporary evidence for anything written in the gospels, not even the crucifixion. Although that is accepted as an actual event given the situation in the region at the time.

Just like you don't for Caesar's pirate adventure. Or most other written accounts in history. Because the written accounts ARE the contemporary evidence for the bible.

A fourth century synagogue does not "confirm details in the NT". The older building has yet to be identified.

There is a LOT of archeological evidence that confirms the bible. You are free to handwave it away, but you would be wrong to do so.

That is a remark I would expect to receive from a seven year old.
Your opinion is not automatically fact.

Neither is yours. Neener, neener.

What relevance does my sexuality have concerning my ability to critically assess ancient texts?

I was just describing what type of troll you were. Own it.

For the ancient world we also have archaeological evidence, numismatics, iconography, and epigraphic sources

No duh. And as I said we have such evidence that backs up the accounts in the NT. Yet you reject it. You seem to expect they need to find an ancient video tape before you would believe the NT.

Plutarch and Suetonius both refer to it.

So what? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John refer to Jesus and his adventures. Yet you reject them and they were written much closer to the events than Plutarch's and Suetonius's. Even using YOUR dating.

Only in scraps and fragments. The earliest scrap of papyrus for any NT text is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. it contains a few lines from verses thirty one to thirty three and thirty seven to thirty eight from the gospel of John chapter 18 That is it.

That one might even be an original, not a copy. It dates as early as 100 AD, and dating is not perfectly accurate. John was supposed to write his stuff in the late 90s. If it isn't an original then it was a very early copy.

But we have a lot of other copies of NT manuscripts. Thousands of them. and they all match up very closely. Meaning those who copied them were very careful to be accurate. And it means that we can know what was in the originals to a high degree of confidence. The NT we have today is VERY close to the original documents. And where we are not sure, translators note that in footnotes. Way much more attestation than you have for something like Plutarch's "Parallel Lives"

Source: https://hc.edu/museums/dunham-bible-museum/tour-of-the-museum/past-exhibits/biblical-manuscripts/

There are approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition, there are 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in other languages. The New Testament autographa, the manuscripts written by the original authors, are unavailable, but manuscripts have been discovered that are dated as early as the 2nd century.

Early manuscripts were written on either:

• Parchment: writing material made from animal skin (might be lamb, goat, deer, or cow), or
• Papyrus: a reed plant that grows along the banks of the Nile. There are 1,276 New Testament papyri, the earliest copies of portions of the New Testament.

© Copyright Original Source

As I have noted to your best friend rogue06 other ancient texts did inspire the amount of copying in the later ancient world that the Christian texts did. And of course earlier copies have been lost to accident or time.

The fact still remains that Plutarch wrote his account 1000 years AFTER the events he wrote about Caesar. He had no personal knowledge. He could only go by earlier accounts, now lost to time. Or maybe he just made it all up. No way to know. Yet you have no problem accepting it while rejecting the NT accounts that were written very close to the events.

Then why repeatedly reply to me on this topic?

I am bored.

You make several responses and then suddenly decide you are not going any further.

I did.

There were no ECFs in the first century and the "bible that was quoted" was the LXX . That is what early Christians deemed Scripture.

The gospels and epistles were quoted in great detail by the early church Fathers such as Origen. Here is Bart Ehrman discussing that topic
https://ehrmanblog.org/can-we-recons...hurch-fathers/

There was no New Testament prior to 70 CE. Who told you that nonsense?

Ah I see you are playing your word game again. I meant the books that comprise the NT, the gospels and epistles. They were written before 70 AD for the most part. The gospel of John is likely written in the 90s.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yup. And that is true. Prove me wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who critically assesses these texts is in the wrong? On what evidence?

Too much to even start. Even your use of "attested" historical evidence. What you actually mean is "historical evidence that I agree with"

That is a good cop out.

So what? Putting the books together into one volume can only happen if the books existed before that.

Copies certainly existed but where has that been in dispute?

They were taking the books and letters that Christians had been using since the beginning

Not since the beginning. Jesus and his disciples were not fluent Koine Greek. They are Galilean peasants.

and making them one official volume, while rejecting the various psuedo gospels and epistles. They knew which books were real and which were fake and they took steps to ensure that future generations would not be fooled by them

So why were texts removed?

You are still missing the point. All we had were written accounts of Crucifixion until then.

I am not missing any point. The discovery of the heel bone and the nail is certainly interesting but as noted crucified bodies were generally left to rot and then thrown into a pit.

You keep trying to claim that written documents are not trustworthy.

The documents of which you write, are, I assume the four gospels. These were written to preach and teach. They were not composed as dispassionate accounts of events.

Yet here we have an example of written documents being confirmed later by physical evidence.

And?

Can you name any physical archeological evidence found that contradicts the accounts in the NT?

What specific "accounts in the NT"?

And yet you accept an account written 1000 years after the event as even plausible. Why? Because you want to.

What account are you referencing?

Historians also accept it because there is no evidence to contradict it.

It is accepted within the known history of the region at that time. The internal narrative of conversations with his captors etc, are evidently stylistic examples of prose writing at that time. Josephus does something similar in putting speeches into the mouth of Titus.

As I said written historical documents are accepted unless there is some compelling reason to reject it as true.

The writings of Plutarch and Suetonius are both dealt with at some length by various authors and their accounts are not assumed to be verbatim in every detail. However, piracy was a serious problem and shortly afterwards Pompey dealt with it

Just like you don't for Caesar's pirate adventure.

I hardly think being captured by pirates is an adventure.

Or most other written accounts in history.

Such as?

Because the written accounts ARE the contemporary evidence for the bible.

What texts are you referencing? You write the bible but are you referring to the Hebrew texts or the Greek or both?

There is a LOT of archeological evidence that confirms the bible. You are free to handwave it away, but you would be wrong to do so.

Given that I provided extraneous contemporary examples confirming Omri and Jehu why would I handwave away such evidence?

Neither is yours. Neener, neener.


I was just describing what type of troll you were. Own it.

You are engaging in playground rhetoric? Fair enough

No duh. And as I said we have such evidence that backs up the accounts in the NT.

Really? Where is the first century epigraphic evidence for Jesus?

What coins did he mint?

What contemporary iconography do we have for him or his disciples?

We know that real places and some real people are mentioned in the gospels but we have nothing to confirm all the internal narratives.

Yet you reject it. You seem to expect they need to find an ancient video tape before you would believe the NT.

If you want me to believe as historical facts that a three day old corpse was resurrected, that the dead were brought back to life, that the blind were made to see and the lame to walk and that a man was bodily lifted up into the heavens, then no I am not going accept any of that as historical fact. Psychosomatic ailments may explain some of the alleged miracles but no one who has been dead for several days has ever returned to life.

So what? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John refer to Jesus and his adventures. Yet you reject them and they were written much closer to the events than Plutarch's and Suetonius's. Even using YOUR dating.

Plutarch and Suetonius were not writing religious texts to preach and teach.

That one might even be an original, not a copy. It dates as early as 100 AD,

Datings are from approximately 125 -175 CE.

and dating is not perfectly accurate.

Indeed. It is not an exact science.

John was supposed to write his stuff in the late 90s. If it isn't an original then it was a very early copy.

“supposed” being the operative word.

Yes it may be an early copy but we have precious little of it.

If you believe that at least two evangelists walked and talked with the Christ why did those early Christians not preserve the words of such important figures within their religion?

Here for those early Christians were the texts written by the hands of two men who had eaten and talked and walked with Our Lord.

Surely such a text would have had some importance. Yet the originals are long gone and we find scraps of copies in rubbish tips or larger examples being used as palimpsests.

[QUOTE=Sparko;n1585891]
But we have a lot of other copies of NT manuscripts. Thousands of them. and they all match up very closely. Meaning those who copied them were very careful to be accurate..

And it means that we can know what was in the originals to a high degree of confidence. The NT we have today is VERY close to the original documents. And where we are not sure, translators note that in footnotes. Way much more attestation than you have for something like Plutarch's "Parallel Lives"
[HYPERCITE=https://hc.edu/museums/dunham-bible-museum/tour-of-the-museum/past-exhibits/biblical-manuscripts/]
There are approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition, there are 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in other languages. The New Testament autographa, the manuscripts written by the original authors, are unavailable, but manuscripts have been discovered that are dated as early as the 2nd century.

I have had this exchange with tabibito on the thread Marks Ending. I am not retracing it here

The fact still remains that Plutarch wrote his account 1000 years AFTER the events he wrote about Caesar.

Plutarch was born c. 46 CE.

He had no personal knowledge. [He could only go by earlier accounts, now lost to time.

His Parallel Lives has more to do with comparisons between each set of individuals than actual histories.

Or maybe he just made it all up.

Maybe the gospel writers did too.

No way to know. Yet you have no problem accepting it while rejecting the NT accounts that were written very close to the events.

The events in the gospels lack credence and the texts all vary and contradict one another. Again, a good example is the birth narrative. Luke and Matthew cannot both be right.

The gospels and epistles were quoted in great detail by the early church Fathers such as Origen. Here is Bart Ehrman discussing that topic
http://<a href="https://ehrmanblog.o...h-fathers/</a>

Did you read all of it?

Ah I see you are playing your word game again. I meant the books that comprise the NT, the gospels and epistles. They were written before 70 AD for the most part. The gospel of John is likely written in the 90s.

You are making a blanket and erroneous comment.

Datings for all these texts remain tentative but several are dated to the second century CE.

[Sparko]

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who critically assesses these texts is in the wrong? On what evidence?

That is a good cop out.

Copies certainly existed but where has that been in dispute?

Not since the beginning. Jesus and his disciples were not fluent Koine Greek. They are Galilean peasants.

So why were texts removed?

I am not missing any point. The discovery of the heel bone and the nail is certainly interesting but as noted crucified bodies were generally left to rot and then thrown into a pit.

The documents of which you write, are, I assume the four gospels. These were written to preach and teach. They were not composed as dispassionate accounts of events.

And?

What specific "accounts in the NT"?

What account are you referencing?

It is accepted within the known history of the region at that time. The internal narrative of conversations with his captors etc, are evidently stylistic examples of prose writing at that time. Josephus does something similar in putting speeches into the mouth of Titus.

The writings of Plutarch and Suetonius are both dealt with at some length by various authors and their accounts are not assumed to be verbatim in every detail. However, piracy was a serious problem and shortly afterwards Pompey dealt with it

I hardly think being captured by pirates is an adventure.

Such as?

What texts are you referencing? You write the bible but are you referring to the Hebrew texts or the Greek or both?

Given that I provided extraneous contemporary examples confirming Omri and Jehu why would I handwave away such evidence?

You are engaging in playground rhetoric? Fair enough

Really? Where is the first century epigraphic evidence for Jesus?

What coins did he mint?

What contemporary iconography do we have for him or his disciples?

We know that real places and some real people are mentioned in the gospels but we have nothing to confirm all the internal narratives.

If you want me to believe as historical facts that a three day old corpse was resurrected, that the dead were brought back to life, that the blind were made to see and the lame to walk and that a man was bodily lifted up into the heavens, then no I am not going accept any of that as historical fact. Psychosomatic ailments may explain some of the alleged miracles but no one who has been dead for several days has ever returned to life.

Plutarch and Suetonius were not writing religious texts to preach and teach.

Datings are from approximately 125 -175 CE.

Indeed. It is not an exact science.

“supposed” being the operative word.

Yes it may be an early copy but we have precious little of it.

If you believe that at least two evangelists walked and talked with the Christ why did those early Christians not preserve the words of such important figures within their religion?

Here for those early Christians were the texts written by the hands of two men who had eaten and talked and walked with Our Lord.

Surely such a text would have had some importance. Yet the originals are long gone and we find scraps of copies in rubbish tips or larger examples being used as palimpsests.

But we have a lot of other copies of NT manuscripts. Thousands of them. and they all match up very closely. Meaning those who copied them were very careful to be accurate..

I have had this exchange with tabibito on the thread Marks Ending. I am not retracing it here

Plutarch was born c. 46 CE.

His Parallel Lives has more to do with comparisons between each set of individuals than actual histories.

Maybe the gospel writers did too.

The events in the gospels lack credence and the texts all vary and contradict one another. Again, a good example is the birth narrative. Luke and Matthew cannot both be right.

Did you read all of it?


You are making a blanket and erroneous comment.

Datings for all these texts remain tentative but several are dated to the second century CE.

I have given my reasons in the past and feel no need to repeat them.
Take each of those statements and provide supporting evidence for each of them and then compose it all into a coherent piece of prose.
.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have given my reasons in the past and feel no need to repeat them.
Take each of those statements and provide supporting evidence for each of them and then compose it all into a coherent piece of prose.
.

Are you bottling out?

[Sparko]

Are you bottling out?

ha/Your fanciful flights of imagination beggar belief./ha

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

ha/Your fanciful flights of imagination beggar belief./ha

I responded to your comments. If you cannot follow that post, then you are beyond help.

[Sparko]

I responded to your comments. If you cannot follow that post, then you are beyond help.

Na. I got what I wanted from our interchange.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Na. I got what I wanted from our interchange.

Do you actually remember what you write?

[JimL]

This thread is prompted by a remark made by CP in a thread on the Civics board where in a reply to Sam he made this last comment

That made me wonder whether if among some Christians the belief that one is saved/born again removes any belief in the possibility of receiving eternal punishment.
In other words, is being saved/born again all that is required to believe that an individual will get to heaven?

I think that's what it means to most christians is that they've joined the cult, they've become believers, they've performed the required initiation ritual of baptism and can now rest easy in the knowledge that because of their belief and faith they need not fear death anymore because they will literally be reborn, they'll resurrect, they'll be given new, gloried, and sin proof bodies, and then faster than the speed of light they'll be transported into the eternal bliss of the most beautiful world the human mind could possibly imagine.
You might say that becoming a Christian, being baptized, "RAISES THEIR SPIRITS". 😁

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think that's what it means to most christians is that they've joined the cult, they've become believers, they've performed the required initiation ritual of baptism and can now rest easy in the knowledge that because of their belief and faith they need not fear death anymore because they will literally be reborn, they'll resurrect, they'll be given new, gloried, and sin proof bodies, and then faster than the speed of light they'll be transported into the eternal bliss of the most beautiful world the human mind could possibly imagine.
You might say that becoming a Christian, being baptized, "RAISES THEIR SPIRITS". 😁

Yet they continue to fear dying . One only has to look at the Prayer Request board on this site and note that prayers are offered during church services for members of that congregation who are ill.

In another thread I started based on two documentaries, as Gary Burd and his fellow Biker Knights for Jesus were en route to their mass rendezvous in Lebanon Kansas, one bike had a crash. Given all their fervent beliefs that God is directing everything one wonders why they bothered to call the emergency services and did not leave those injured to be dealt with by God.

As we know most Christians will use every available drug therapy and medical procedure [all the products of rational science not religion] to hold back the moment when they do actually go to their blissful eternity. DNR requests on medical notes are not exactly the same thing.

As the late great Dave Allen once remarked if they are so convinced about this eternal bliss and are looking forward to it as eagerly as some profess they should be queueing up to go!

I also find the notion of once saved always saved potentially extremely pernicious.

[Cow Poke]

I think that's what it means to most christians is that they've joined the cult, they've become believers, they've performed the required initiation ritual of baptism and can now rest easy in the knowledge that because of their belief and faith they need not fear death anymore because they will literally be reborn, they'll resurrect, they'll be given new, gloried, and sin proof bodies, and then faster than the speed of light they'll be transported into the eternal bliss of the most beautiful world the human mind could possibly imagine.
You might say that becoming a Christian, being baptized, "RAISES THEIR SPIRITS". 😁

You've got baptism all wrong, Jim. It's not a "required initiation ritual".

[Cow Poke]

Yet they continue to fear dying .

I'm not afraid of dying - I'm more concerned about living too long.

One only has to look at the Prayer Request board on this site and note that prayers are offered during church services for members of that congregation who are ill.

Shocking - if we're going to be alive, we want to be in good health.