Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

Which is basically what we've been trying to tell you about your beliefs...

Carp, there is a body of historical evidence (referenced persons, places, things are verifiable). It is called the New Testament. It was born of a community that was populated by those who personally knew Christ. I have not seen good reasons to assume otherwise or to not take these texts at face value. Is that "proof" - no, any more than taking any other ancient text at face value. But when one decides not to take the texts at face value there needs to be compelling reasons - I do not see that. Those are the questionable assumptions.

[metacrock]

Raymond E Brown believes, as a leap of faith, that the physical resurrection and the virgin birth are true. But this does not diminish his scholarly opinion that the Jesus story is based upon: “four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations”.

Brown died as the Pre Mark redaction was coming into its own it is now consensus, The four canonical gospels were not the first gospels the church had. the pre mark redaction goes circa to AD 50.

[metacrock]

Not at all. It is based on the systematic research of the majority of biblical scholars

the Pre Mark redaction is consensus among scholars.

[metacrock]

Not to mention there are clearly no possible claims of "eyewitnesses" to this event, so it is a handed-down story based on a theology that had evolved 30-70 years by the time it was documented.

We dont need eye witnesses to the virgin birth there is a whole gospel fill of witnesses to resurrection. see Jesus and the eye witnesses,

[metacrock]

I believe in the resurrection, but I wonder about the virgin birth. Miraculous births were a literary genre at the time for great men like Alexander the Great, so it's possible it was tacked on later to add legitimacy to the Jesus narrative. And there is John 7:5 where it says that Jesus' own brothers did not believe in Him. If He had had a miraculous birth, wouldn't it have gotten around to his siblings that something was up with Jesus?

V B is important to affirm but it is not a saving doctrine. Look the Romans road Paul spears of Resurrection as something if you believe in this you will be saved. Never says that of the VB.

[seer]

Raymond E Brown believes, as a leap of faith, that the physical resurrection and the virgin birth are true. But this does not diminish his scholarly opinion that the Jesus story is based upon: “four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations”.

Yet in all his studies his conclusion was that Christ was resurrected. You agree with him when he agrees with you, and reject him when he doesn't. And 1 Thessalonians is the earliest book in the NT about 50AD. And Mark, Matthew, Luke are well within the lifetimes of the actual followers of Christ.

[seer]

Not to mention there are clearly no possible claims of "eyewitnesses" to this event, so it is a handed-down story based on a theology that had evolved 30-70 years by the time it was documented.

Of course there was. Jesus' mother was a companion of the Apostles and mentioned in Acts 1. And the writer of Luke and Acts used eyewitness testimony. And this is something that one would not likely forget - no matter how many years later. There is no good reason to believe that the virgin birth was a made up event.

[carpedm9587]

When you say "this event," I assume you're referring to the resurrection? I was referring to circumstantial evidence, such as the textual evidence and the apparent sudden and dramatic effects on the lives of the early members of the community.

Sorry - I was not clear. I was referring to the claims of a virgin birth. While there is some evidence of a resurrection, it is entirely contained within the texts of the bible. ASAICT, there is no external corroborating evidence of the resurrection, and some of the claims about this event are so startling as to raise the question, "why were these events not reports anywhere else?"

[carpedm9587]

Carp, there is a body of historical evidence (referenced persons, places, things are verifiable). It is called the New Testament. It was born of a community that was populated by those who personally knew Christ. I have not seen good reasons to assume otherwise or to not take these texts at face value. Is that "proof" - no, any more than taking any other ancient text at face value. But when one decides not to take the texts at face value there needs to be compelling reasons - I do not see that. Those are the questionable assumptions.

Seer - this is a collection of theological stories all arising from within the Christian community, many depending on one another for content, and all written decades after the events they report.

So here is a possible scenario: the communities that arose after the death of Jesus began to tell stories about their founder that emphasized his message. As the years unfolded, the stories grew and changed and became more miraculous. As questions were raised (e.g., how can a god be a man? how can a monotheism have a father and a son that are both divine?) these question were answered in various ways by various sects. In time, the stories are captured and documented in various letters and writings that place these events in a historically verifiable context (e.g., rulers correctly named, cities correctly named, community events correctly identified, etc.). 300 years later, the most commonly used of these stories, and the ones with the greatest internal alignment are selected from all of these documents and deemed "canonical" and become what we know today as the NT.

How do you show conclusively that this is not a possible and even probable scenario? I don't think you can, which is why I think you continue to shift the question to those who do not accept these books as an accurate history of Jesus to prove their position: you are unable to prove yours.

And that is the nature of history: all we can do is piece together the documents and artifacts that are available and make a "best guess." The further back we go and the fewer documents and artifacts we have, the less sure we are about those guesses and the foggier history becomes. We have an enormous amount of documentation, much of it original, about an event that happened about 250 years ago: the forming of this country. They are written in the same language we speak and by authors we can clearly identify. Many of those authors have a surrounding body of work we can use to "get to know them." They arise from a culture that is much closer to ours than that of the ANE. And none of the claims made fail to align with our everyday experiences and our understanding of how the universe works. Despite that, we STILL do not have agreement about the intentions of the founders and even some dispute about some of the history. Yet you seek to claim that a small group of documents written 2,000, none of which we have the originals for, all of which were written in an ancient and largely unused language, by a culture vastly different from our own, making fantastical claims about mystical/miraculous events and gods is a solid basis for making certain claims about "what happened."

Sorry - but you cannot support these claims.

[carpedm9587]

We dont need eye witnesses to the virgin birth there is a whole gospel fill of witnesses to resurrection. see Jesus and the eye witnesses,

Sorry, Meta - but that claim simply does not fly. See my previous response to Seer. Bottom line: you have to make so many assumptions to arrive at this conclusion that there is no way to show that the conclusion is probable, never mind possible.

[carpedm9587]

Of course there was. Jesus' mother was a companion of the Apostles and mentioned in Acts 1. And the writer of Luke and Acts used eyewitness testimony. And this is something that one would not likely forget - no matter how many years later. There is no good reason to believe that the virgin birth was a made up event.

Seer - you are describing "hearsay" testimony - handed down stories from one person to another. And we have no compelling evidence that any part of the NT was written by eyewitnesses. You have to assume this is true because you cannot show it is true.

But if you think otherwise, then by all means present the evidence that 1) the books of the NT were written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe, and 2) the events they describe are an accurate retelling of what occurred, including specific words spoken and daily activities recounted.

[seer]

Seer - this is a collection of theological stories all arising from within the Christian community, many depending on one another for content, and all written decades after the events they report.

So here is a possible scenario: the communities that arose after the death of Jesus began to tell stories about their founder that emphasized his message. As the years unfolded, the stories grew and changed and became more miraculous. As questions were raised (e.g., how can a god be a man? how can a monotheism have a father and a son that are both divine?) these question were answered in various ways by various sects. In time, the stories are captured and documented in various letters and writings that place these events in a historically verifiable context (e.g., rulers correctly named, cities correctly named, community events correctly identified, etc.). 300 years later, the most commonly used of these stories, and the ones with the greatest internal alignment are selected from all of these documents and deemed "canonical" and become what we know today as the NT.

How do you show conclusively that this is not a possible and even probable scenario? I don't think you can, which is why I think you continue to shift the question to those who do not accept these books as an accurate history of Jesus to prove their position: you are unable to prove yours.

And that is the nature of history: all we can do is piece together the documents and artifacts that are available and make a "best guess." The further back we go and the fewer documents and artifacts we have, the less sure we are about those guesses and the foggier history becomes. We have an enormous amount of documentation, much of it original, about an event that happened about 250 years ago: the forming of this country. They are written in the same language we speak and by authors we can clearly identify. Many of those authors have a surrounding body of work we can use to "get to know them." They arise from a culture that is much closer to ours than that of the ANE. And none of the claims made fail to align with our everyday experiences and our understanding of how the universe works. Despite that, we STILL do not have agreement about the intentions of the founders and even some dispute about some of the history. Yet you seek to claim that a small group of documents written 2,000, none of which we have the originals for, all of which were written in an ancient and largely unused language, by a culture vastly different from our own, making fantastical claims about mystical/miraculous events and gods is a solid basis for making certain claims about "what happened."

Sorry - but you cannot support these claims.

Let's focus: the communities that arose after the death of Jesus began to tell stories about their founder that emphasized his message. As the years unfolded, the stories grew and changed and became more miraculous.

So you don't know this, it an assumption on your part. So what evidence do you have that these stories were changed over the years rather than remaining generally accurate (seeing that the followers of Christ were still living when most of the early texts were written)?

[carpedm9587]

Let's focus: the communities that arose after the death of Jesus began to tell stories about their founder that emphasized his message. As the years unfolded, the stories grew and changed and became more miraculous.

So you don't know this, it an assumption on your part. So what evidence do you have that these stories were changed over the years rather than remaining generally accurate (seeing that the followers of Christ were still living when most of the early texts were written)?

I didn't say I knew this, Seer, or assumed it at all. That's a sidetrack and/or a strawman of your construction.

I clearly outlined this as a "possible scenario." There is certainly nothing about the scenario that is, on the face of it, impossible. If I had said "they used faulty computer equipment to write their stories," you could quickly show that computers did not exist in that era. What I am saying is that this is a perfectly possible scenario. If you disagree with me - then show how it is impossible for this to have occurred. I submit that you cannot.

The scenario fits the available facts, and explains the structure of the NT easily as well as the scenario that you have adopted as "true." You have no basis for rejecting the scenario I have offered, yet you do anyway and cling instead to the scenario that you and those before you and with you have created instead. Yet you cannot even begin to show that your scenario is plausible or even probable.

This is the problem with your belief system: it claims a level of certitude that transcends the available facts.

[seer]

I didn't say I knew this, Seer, or assumed it at all. That's a sidetrack. I clearly outlined it as a "possible scenario." There is certainly nothing about the scenario that is, on the face of it, impossible. If I had said "they used faulty computer equipment to write their stories," you could quickly show that computers did not exist in that era. What I am saying is that this is a perfectly possible scenario. If you disagree with me - then show how it is impossible for this to have occurred. I submit that you cannot.

The scenario fits the available facts, and explains the structure of the NT easily as well as the scenario that you have adopted as "true." You have no basis for rejecting the scenario I have offered, yet you do anyway and cling instead to the scenario that you and those before you and with you have created instead. Yet you cannot even begin to show that your scenario is plausible or even probable.

Carp, one can invent any number of possible scenarios. I'm asking; based on what evidence do you believe that these beliefs were not generally accurate? And I'm not presenting a scenario, I'm just relying on the texts.

This is the problem with your belief system: it claims a level of certitude that transcends the available facts.

But the only available facts for what the early Christian believed are in the New Testament (and later Church fathers).

[carpedm9587]

Carp, one can invent any number of possible scenarios. I'm asking; based on what evidence do you believe that these beliefs were not generally accurate? And I'm not presenting a scenario, I'm just relying on the texts.

And that is the part you still apparently do not understand: you are presenting a scenario. You are looking at texts that can be interpreted any number of ways, choosing one scenario, and claiming it is the right one. Here is your scenario:

Jesus did all of the things described in the NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 30-70 years later, they and others wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read, some of them getting it right and some of them getting it wrong. 300 years later, in a church council, a group of people sorted through all of the various texts that had been written, discarded the inaccurate ones and successfully incorporated only the 100% accurate ones in what came to be known as the NT.

This is your chosen scenario (if I got something wrong, please tell me which part), but you can no more show that it is true than I can show that the one I put forward is true. Yet you claim an extremely high level of historical accuracy - with little/no basis for making that claim.

But the only available facts for what the early Christian believed are in the New Testament (and later Church fathers).

And THAT is your problem...coupled with a simple reality: there is no way of knowing if these are actually "facts" about the life of Jesus, or simply "facts" about the beliefs of the early church. There are three possibilities with respect to this:

1. They are accurate facts about both the beliefs of the early church and the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth
2. They are accurate facts about the beliefs of the early church, but not about the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth
3. They are not accurate facts about either beliefs of the early church or the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth

You propose 1 is true without being able to show that 2 or 3 are not equally as likely.