Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Divine revelation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
    What evidence is there that it is a created story? All around the world the apostles and followers of Jesus Christ of the 1st century believed that "story" to the death. Quite an effort for an engineered story.
    All around the world? The documented records of the time do not indicate that the apostles got all around the world. The lack of any records for the existence of Jesus outside the gospels and the hundreds of witnesses recorded in the gospels establishes the possibility the accounts are possibly not accurate. Believing the story is true does not make it true.

    What sources? What about the Gospels themselves? What about the writings of the Bishops? The NT writings were a bunch of independent sources, not 1 book, it wasn't until later in the 300s when it was put together as a single volume.
    The Matthew, Luke and Mark are not independent sources, and none of the gospels can be dated to before 75 AD.

    The gospels are later sources and not first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. There are absolutely no known independent references of the events of the life of Jesus, nor accounts such as the gospels dating to his lifetime. Again this does not conclude that they are true nor false accounts.

    al events and documentations act as important pointers..they can never in themselves result in proof, but they can lead people in the right direction. Nothing can be proven in history, only what is plausible or not.
    True, nothing can be proven in history. There are most often possible different scenarios to the claims of historicity of events. Neither does claims of being plausible establish it as conclusive in any way. The reality is the Resurrection is a religious belief, based on after the fact written testimony, and may be true, and maybe false.

    Since when is it a condition that we need evidence prior to 50 to 70AD? Show me any historical event from that time period that has evidence for anything within 30 years.
    The physical archeological evidence of the battles and siege of cities throughout that period, dated by radiometric dating, and some Roman historical records. Egyptian writing dating a great deal of the history of Egypt written at the time the events occurred, just to name a few.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-19-2014, 06:50 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
      All of that can be refute and maybe already has been refuted.

      Regarding the stolen body: "The hypothesis has existed since the days of Early Christianity; it is discussed in the Gospel of Matthew, generally agreed to have been written between AD 70 and 100. Matthew's gospel raises the hypothesis only to refute it; according to it, the claim the body was stolen is a lie spread by the Jewish high priests."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis
      Nothing in the Matthew's gospel, nor the later references establish the claim as a lie, nor conclusively refute it. Of course those that believe it will call it a lie, but that does not conclusively make it a lie. It remains a possibility that the body was stolen.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        All around the world? The documented records of the time do not indicate that the apostles got all around the world.
        There's a little thing called apostolic succession that held in the ancient world. Earliest reference in 1st Clement written during time of the apostles.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        The lack of any records for the existence of Jesus outside the gospels and the hundreds of witnesses recorded in the gospels establishes the possibility the accounts are possibly not accurate. Believing the story is true does not make it true.
        You have a different definition of "lack" then. Pliny, Tacitucs, Thallus, are not a "lack of records". Perhaps in your bizarre world-view, but not the views of scholars or ancient historians.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        The Matthew, Luke and Mark are not independent sources, and none of the gospels can be dated to before 75 AD.

        The gospels are later sources and not first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. There are absolutely no known independent references of the events of the life of Jesus, nor accounts such as the gospels dating to his lifetime. Again this does not conclude that they are true nor false accounts.
        It's actually possible that Mark was based upon Peter's account. How come non of the gospels ever mention that the temple was destructed in 75 A.D. if they were penned after 75 A.D.? The internal evidence says otherwise; the gospels are first hand accounts. One would think that at least one or two of the gospels would have mentioned that the temple had been destroyed in 75 A.D. if they were penned after 75 A.D.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        True, nothing can be proven in history. There are most often possible different scenarios to the claims of historicity of events. Neither does claims of being plausible establish it as conclusive in any way. The reality is the Resurrection is a religious belief, based on after the fact written testimony, and may be true, and maybe false.
        Based upon your criteria that certainly isn't the criteria peer-reviewed Ancient Historians use. History is built upon plausibility and what likely happened, from then it's historical fact. Bart Ehrman would be the first one to laugh when people say we can't conclusively prove Christ's historicity.

        The burning of Rome by Nero is after the fact written testimony. Are we to believe it? Historians do.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        The physical archeological evidence of the battles and siege of cities throughout that period, dated by radiometric dating, and some Roman historical records.
        Let me ask you, which volcano exploded and killed many in Rome and when was it recorded? Radiometric dating has built-in assumptions.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Egyptian writing dating a great deal of the history of Egypt written at the time the events occurred, just to name a few.
        Which time in Egyptian history? You do realize we have an entire dark age in Egyptology where we can barely put together what was going on for centuries? The later period of Egypt was the only period that was highly literate and were able to piece everything together.
        Yeng Vg

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
          There's a little thing called apostolic succession that held in the ancient world. Earliest reference in 1st Clement written during time of the apostles.
          1st Clement DOES NOT date to the time of the apostles.

          Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

          The First Epistle of Clement (Ancient Greek: Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους Klēmentos pros Korinthious “Clement to Corinthians”) is a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. The letter dates from the late 1st or early 2nd century, and ranks with Didache as one of the earliest — if not the earliest — of extant Christian documents outside the canonical New Testament. As the name suggests, a Second Epistle of Clement is known; but this is a later work, not by the same author.

          © Copyright Original Source



          You have a different definition of "lack" then. Pliny, Tacitucs, Thallus, are not a "lack of records". Perhaps in your bizarre world-view, but not the views of scholars or ancient historians.
          All of the sources above are later second hand references well after the life of Christ including those by Josephus.

          It's actually possible that Mark was based upon Peter's account. How come non of the gospels ever mention that the temple was destructed in 75 A.D. if they were penned after 75 A.D.? The internal evidence says otherwise; the gospels are first hand accounts. One would think that at least one or two of the gospels would have mentioned that the temple had been destroyed in 75 A.D. if they were penned after 75 A.D.
          Present evidence indicates that they were penned after 75 AD regardless.

          Based upon your criteria that certainly isn't the criteria peer-reviewed Ancient Historians use. History is built upon plausibility and what likely happened, from then it's historical fact. Bart Ehrman would be the first one to laugh when people say we can't conclusively prove Christ's historicity.
          Bart Ehrman recognizes the historicity of Jesus Christ, not the Resurrection. I did not say scholars did not recognize that Jesus Christ as a historical figure. I said there is a complete lack of historical records concerning Jesus Christ during his life, and no gospels until after 50 - 75 AD.

          The burning of Rome by Nero is after the fact written testimony. Are we to believe it? Historians do.
          There is archeological evidence datable of the burning of Rome at that time.

          Let me ask you, which volcano exploded and killed many in Rome and when was it recorded? Radiometric dating has built-in assumptions.
          Rome? Are you referring to Pompeii, As far as Pompeii is concerned there are several different ways the eruption is dated including radiometric dating. They all agree. The testimony of Pliny the Younger, Carbon 14 dating of fish waste, Potassium-Argon dating and Argon-Argon dating all agree that the eruption is 79 AD.

          Which time in Egyptian history? You do realize we have an entire dark age in Egyptology where we can barely put together what was going on for centuries? The later period of Egypt was the only period that was highly literate and were able to piece everything together.
          False, there are writings in tombs and other structures through much of the history of Egypt including the time of Christ. You asked a specific question as to what was recorded within 30 years of the events at the time of Christ. I gave you an answer. Of course, all events all the history of Egypt are not recorded, but yes, most of the history of Egypt was recorded at the time of the events.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-19-2014, 06:54 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
            All of that can be refute and maybe already has been refuted.

            Regarding the stolen body: "The hypothesis has existed since the days of Early Christianity; it is discussed in the Gospel of Matthew, generally agreed to have been written between AD 70 and 100. Matthew's gospel raises the hypothesis only to refute it; according to it, the claim the body was stolen is a lie spread by the Jewish high priests."

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis
            Ha, ha! No one can verify or refute any of that! Unless you were there? All you asked was to show some possible naturalistic explanations. I did. You can't say for sure that those things in my list didn't happen. Likewise, I cannot say that they did. Frankly, I don't really care. My worldview does not depend on the accuracy of an ancient text. You accept the resurrection stories on faith. There is no proof one way or the other.

            Arguing for the resurrection account from one of the books of the Christian Testament is the same as lifting a section of Don Quixote to prove that Alonso Quixano REALLY DID tilt at windmills!

            LOL!

            NORM
            When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              The documented records of the time do not indicate that the apostles got all around the world.
              Are you sure about this?
              "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
              -Unknown

              "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


              I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              I support the :
              sigpic

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
                Are you sure about this?
                I am sure about this. There are possible anecdotal legends of one or maybe two apostles journeys in Asia or Africa, and possible outrageous mystery appearances eleswhere, but no evidence. Paul's journeys to the Mediterranean are the only documented one, and Paul was not one of the original apostles.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-19-2014, 10:04 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                  There's a little thing called apostolic succession that held in the ancient world. Earliest reference in 1st Clement written during time of the apostles.



                  You have a different definition of "lack" then. Pliny, Tacitucs, Thallus, are not a "lack of records". Perhaps in your bizarre world-view, but not the views of scholars or ancient historians.



                  It's actually possible that Mark was based upon Peter's account. How come non of the gospels ever mention that the temple was destructed in 75 A.D. if they were penned after 75 A.D.? The internal evidence says otherwise; the gospels are first hand accounts. One would think that at least one or two of the gospels would have mentioned that the temple had been destroyed in 75 A.D. if they were penned after 75 A.D.



                  Based upon your criteria that certainly isn't the criteria peer-reviewed Ancient Historians use. History is built upon plausibility and what likely happened, from then it's historical fact. Bart Ehrman would be the first one to laugh when people say we can't conclusively prove Christ's historicity.

                  The burning of Rome by Nero is after the fact written testimony. Are we to believe it? Historians do.



                  Let me ask you, which volcano exploded and killed many in Rome and when was it recorded? Radiometric dating has built-in assumptions.



                  Which time in Egyptian history? You do realize we have an entire dark age in Egyptology where we can barely put together what was going on for centuries? The later period of Egypt was the only period that was highly literate and were able to piece everything together.
                  Just a couple of things. First, our last Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, not 75 CE.

                  Secondly, it is a common fallacy that Nero actually set fire to Rome. He wasn't even in Rome at the time - he was some 35 miles away in Antium. Some historians believe the fire was actually started by Christians. Some do blame Nero, but that he hired some men to do it while he was away. Still yet, some historians believe it was accidental. It did start in the slums, after all.

                  Nero certainly milked the incident for his own political aims (like disparaging the Christians - which is probably why some Roman accounts blame the fire on them). Also, Nero did not "fiddle while Rome burned." The fiddle wasn't invented for quite some time after Nero was dead. So, no, actually; historians DON'T believe Nero burned Rome. But, they are also quick to tell you that they simply don't TRUST the written documents because of all the political monkeyshines going on at the time.

                  I think you misunderstand the term "Dark Ages." They were not called that because we know nothing about those periods (either Egyptian or European), but rather; because they were thought to be a time of stagnant human evolution or a period of struggle. There is actually quite a lot of information about these so-called Dark Ages. Just let your Googles do some walking!

                  NORM
                  When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                    I think you misunderstand the term "Dark Ages." They were not called that because we know nothing about those periods (either Egyptian or European), but rather; because they were thought to be a time of stagnant human evolution or a period of struggle. There is actually quite a lot of information about these so-called Dark Ages. Just let your Googles do some walking!

                    NORM
                    There were periods of limited knowledge of Egyptian History, but recent archeology has found more information about these periods.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                      It comes down to whether, in a given instance, someone's testimony is sufficient reason, all things considered, to believe the thing being testified to. Bayes' Theorem tells us how we should consider all things.
                      But not everything can be represented in numerical data. If one is determined to apply the theorem to everything, sometimes he must guess. Do you really think that's OK?
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        There were periods of limited knowledge of Egyptian History, but recent archeology has found more information about these periods.
                        I know! I've just been perusing some of them as a result of this thread. I was referring to the misnomer of Dark Ages meaning that we have no knowledge of what happened.

                        NORM
                        When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          But not everything can be represented in numerical data.
                          Probabilities are representable as numbers.

                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          If one is determined to apply the theorem to everything, sometimes he must guess.
                          Sometimes, but in those cases, guesses are all we have to work with, regardless of method.

                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          Do you really think that's OK?
                          My judgment is irrelevant. You can't avoid guessing just by denying that you're doing it.
                          Last edited by Doug Shaver; 10-19-2014, 11:20 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            Probabilities are representable as numbers.


                            Sometimes, but in those cases, guesses are all we have to work with, regardless of method.


                            My judgment is irrelevant. You can't avoid guessing just by denying that you're doing it.
                            Apply Bayes' Theorem to the financial markets and become wealthy
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              Apply Bayes' Theorem to the financial markets and become wealthy
                              Bayes' Theorem confirms that if your evidence is a habit of buying low and selling high, then it's reasonable to believe the proposition, "My wealth is increasing."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                Bayes' Theorem confirms that if your evidence is a habit of buying low and selling high, then it's reasonable to believe the proposition, "My wealth is increasing."
                                Yes, but can you point out someone who explicitly applied Bayes' Theorem and became consequently wealthy?
                                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                427 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,513 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X