Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[1213]

You don't have enough faith to accept empirical evidence? Well, that's a bizarre statement.

The problem is not with real empirical evidence but with the claims some make about the evidence.

 

[1213]

John does.

Not the translations I have.

 

[1213]

Mark 15:42 said Jesus died on the Day of Preparation. But he explains it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath”

Thank you. That is a good point. And as people may already know, 15 th day was a Passover Shabbat, not weekly Shabbat.

And in John we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the
sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14).

The translations I use don't say "day". For example:
'
And it was the Preparation of the Passover...
John 19:14 (Green's literal)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, I want to be faithful/loyal to truth. I am sorry, if it is a problem for you.

You are switching words here, moving from faith to faithful. They don't mean the same thing. You have tried to skirt the point by essentially changing the subject.

His point was that if you care about truth, then you care about evidence, not faith. Faith becomes a hindrance to finding the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I want to be faithful/loyal to truth. I am sorry, if it is a problem for you.

What makes you think that you know what the truth is? Faith is not a pathway to the truth. To find the truth you should be using the scientific method. It helps a lot by eliminating the false.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem is not with real empirical evidence but with the claims some make about the evidence.

Such as?

 

[metis]

Not the translations I have.

John 19:31: "Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed."

 

[joelr]

The idea is that the usual thing in those days for pragmatic reasons and because of differences between Pharisees and Saducees is that the Passover went over 2 days.
It was just a normal practice. There were no enemies involved.
There are also plenty of other ideas to harmonise the gospel accounts.

2 different passover days? What is your source?

We are just presenting the possibilities that the experts argue about. Bart Ehrman is not the only expert.

Ehrman studies with Bruce Metzger who is the expert on the Greek manuscripts. We cnnot present any possibilities without a reason to find them plausible. As if Ehrman wouldn't know reasonable ways to harmonize this if it were possible. Fundmentalists with no training wanting to tell experts in the field what is correct?

afaik all the gospels have Jesus die in the afternoon of the day of preparation for the Passover.
The actual first day of Passover (after the Passover seder) is not likely because of the work that is said to have been done then.
The first day of Passover (after the Passover seder) is also not likely because it seems to defeat the purpose of getting rid of Jesus before the Passover to avoid riots.

What is your source and context. What degrees or personal study do you have of ancient Passover? Rome is not involved?

The story may be fiction so those factors do not matter. John had a theological reason to have Jesus die when the lamb dies. You are assuming it's a real story.

Jesus and disciples were just doing what they usually did at the Passover. Common knowledge for the people then.

Yes so in the capital they would be going on the traditional schedule.

The stories usually give good reason that the disciples followed Him. And we can't dismiss the possibility that they knew of Jesus already.

They don't give good reason at all. They are written in the style of historical fiction.

Yes historians look at evidence and sometimes cannot find proof one way or the other even if they like to present their arguments as the best ones.

If they cannot find proof they say so? Please give me an example of what you are talking about.

You would need to be looking for the parallels to see them and then to exaggerate them and then to be working from the faith position that all religions copy from each other, then to dismiss the idea of OT prophecy concerning the Messiah and say that it is not prophecy, just a source for getting ideas to invent Jesus story etc.

All religions do copy from each other. Even the older apologetic academic work from the late 1800s has to admit the NT is a Hellenistic document.

Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible

by Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915; Black, J. Sutherland (John Sutherland), 1846-1923

We feel that we have moved more out of a Hebrew into a Greek atmosphere


in the Pastoral Kpistles, in Hebrews— which is beyond doubt dependent both in form and in contents on the Alexandrians (e.g. , 131814) — and in the Catholic Epistles ; the Epistle of James, even if, with Spitta, we should class it with the Jewish writings, must have had for its author a man with a Greek education. Tt was a born Greek that wrote Acts. If his Hellenic character does not find very marked expression it is merely due to the nature of his work ; no pure Jew would have uttered the almost pantheistic -sounding sentence, ' in God we live and move and have our being' (1723). In the Fourth Gospel, finally, the influence of Greek philosophy is incontestable. Not only is the Logos, which plays so important a part in the prologue (Ii-i8), of Greek origin ; the gnosticising tendency of John, his enthusiasm for ' the truth ' (svithout genitive), his dualism (God and the world almost treated as absolute antithesis), his predilection for abstractions, compel us to regard the author, Jew by birth as he certainly was, as strongly under the influence of Hellenic ideas. Here again, however, we must leave open the possibility that these Greek elements reached him through the Jewish Alexandrian philosophy ; just as little can his Logos theory have originated independently of Philo, as the figure of the Paraclete in chaps. 14-16 (see J. ReVille, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme Evangile,. Paris, '81). Cp JOHN [SON OK ZKBEDEE], § 31.

We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek ; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the most important cases, not to be determined ; and primitive Christianity as a whole stands considerably nearer to the Hebrew world than to the Greek.



There is little doubt Mark is rewriting Elijah, Moses, Psalms, Paul...

You seem to be exaggerating the similarities. Here is Josephus.
…there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman[1], who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles [2] to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds[3], a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides[4], and a voice against this whole people!” …Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator[5], where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”[6]…for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone[7] out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost[8].

My list was put together from the original language in two places, Theodore Weeden, "Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazarethrovocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation, Forum N.S. 6.2 (fall 2003), pp 137-341; Graig Evans, "Jesus in Non-Christian Sources" in Studying the Historical Jesus )ed Chilton and Evans) pp 443-78, 475-77

I don't know what that is above.

I could easily argue that God again was prophesying through this Jesus to warn Jerusalem and also to remind people (Christians in particular) what Jesus said.
From the actual evidence, the gospels were written pre 70AD but this is proposed as a source for the gospels because of faith that the supernatural is wrong and that the gospels therefore had to have been written after 70AD.

No you cannot "easily" propose a God did anything until you can demonstrate a God exists.
It is reasonable to posit the supernatural did not exist until evidence of it is found, but there is so much evidence against this story being history that its almost impossible it's history.

But even if a God were attempting to prophesize through Josephus a historian, this ends up making Mark look like he's using more sources, creating confusion.

 

[1213]

John 19:31: "Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed."

Ok, thank you. It is interesting how different some translations can be, for example Young's literal, John 19:31: The Jews, therefore, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, since it was the preparation, (for that sabbath day was a great one,) asked of Pilate that their legs may be broken, and they taken away.

But, I don't think there is really any problem in these. 15 th day is the feast of unleavened bread. 14th day is preparation for that. And 13th day can be seen as preparation for passover lamb. So, 13th and 14 th can be called preparation days.

On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy convocation: you shall do no regular work.'"
Lev. 23:6-8

 

[1213]

You are switching words here, moving from faith to faithful. They don't mean the same thing.

I think they are the same thing and being faithful means one is loyal and then it can be said one has faith/loyalty. At least in Biblical context.

 

[joelr]

There are various accounts of the story. Here is the basic story, which shows that you have to be seriously looking for the similarities. Certainly the story line is completely different and even the so called similarities are not as similar as Christ Mythicists present them. The whole thing ends up like the many clues that Paul McCartney had died, that people had found on the cover of the Sargeant Pepper's album. Interesting but stupid unless you are gullible or looking for confirmation of your beliefs. From this site: SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES AND SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES: THE APOTHEOSIS OF ROMULUS VS. THE RESURRECTION JESUS

The general plot of the Romulus myth indicates that the founders of Rome are said to have been the twin brothers Romulus and Remus. Their mother, Rhea, had been forced to become a Vestal Virgin[3] by her uncle, Amulius, because he had been warned that Rhea would bear sons that might overthrow him. However, Rhea became pregnant when she was raped by the god of war, Mars.[4]

Enraged, Amulius ordered that Rhea be buried alive. This was the standard execution for a Vestal Virgin who broke her vow of celibacy. He also ordered that the twins be executed.[5] However, the slave who was to perform the execution placed the boys in a basket upon the Tiber River floating to safety.[6]
The river god Tiberinus rescued the twins, and took them to the Palatine Hill, along the banks of the river, to be nursed by a she-wolf and fed by a woodpecker. In time, Amulius discovered that the twins were still alive, and set out to kill them. However, by that time the twins commanded a militia army, and they defeated and killed Amulius.
They set out to found their own city on the slopes of the Palatine Hill, where they had been raised. However, they disagreed about where the location of the city should be. They decided to have a contest to see who had the will of the gods on his side. Using augury, (which was an ancient form of reading the will of the gods through signs in nature), they each counted the number of vultures they saw in the sky. Romulus saw the most and won the contest. Remus was outraged and the two brothers fought. Romulus won the fight and killed his brother.[7] Thus, he built the city in the location he desired, along the Palatine Hill, and named it Rome after himself. Rome was founded in the year 753 B.C.
Romulus became the first king of the city. In the 38th year after the founding of the city, Romulus and a number of local citizens went to the Campus Martius (the Field of Mars), which was a wide, grassy plain to the west of the city, where games, elections, and other municipal events were held. While they were there, a great storm arose, which darkened the entire city.[8] While this was happening, Romulus was snatched up by a cyclone into heaven to live with the gods. A temple was built on the spot to honor him, and he was worshiped thereafter as a god.
There was no trace of Romulus’ body. However, one morning he appeared to Julius Proculus,[9] appearing larger and more beautiful than before, armed welding weapons shining like fire. Although in a state of shock, Proculus managed to remember Romulus’ last words concerning the future greatness of Rome. The resurrected Romulus explains that he now dwells again in heaven, where he originally came from. Proculus reports his experience to the Roman people and swears to the accuracy of his account with an oath.

Dude, c'mon. A fundamentalist, apologist who is sourcing Habermas, Lee Strobel....more than once?????? Are you serious.
You talk about bias and then you go to an apologist, fundy site? Why would you go and do the thing you are claiming is being done? OMG, N T Wright????
The author of the article DID NOT READ ROMULUS. He took pieces from apologists books who are dead set on writing for Christians, not for historical truth. All 3 authors have been caught bending facts.

Why didn't he go to the actual historians who did the work, read the original languages, and saw all the versions? There are quite a few. Because truth does not matter, their narrative matters.
If Romulus was not like Jesus, historians would show that. The article is by Richard Miller who went through a long depression and difficult time when he began to see Christianity was not true.

For proper treatment of the Romulus myth:
Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome
H.J. Rose The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology

Rex Stem The Exemplary Lessons of Livys Romulus
Transactions of the American Philological Association 136, pp. 329-88

extensive treatment of this subject in:
Richard Miller "Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity" Journal of Biblical Literature 129 pp. 759-76

N.T. Wright Demonstrates the Bankruptcy of Christian Apologetics in Under Nine Minutes​

N.T. Wright Demonstrates the Bankruptcy of Christian Apologetics in Under Nine Minutes • Richard Carrier Blogs

On the Ask NT Wright Anything show, Justin Brierley recently read a write-in question that challenged Anglican apologist N.T. Wright on a claim he’s made that I’ve thoroughly debunked: his claim that women would never be invented by the author of Mark as “witnesses” to the empty tomb, because no...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[joelr]

Thank you. That is a good point. And as people may already know, 15 th day was a Passover Shabbat, not weekly Shabbat.

The translations I use don't say "day". For example:
'
And it was the Preparation of the Passover...
John 19:14 (Green's literal)

Ehrman is using the Greek, he studied under Bruce Metzger at Princeton Seminary. Bruce was considered the highest scholar regarding the original Greek Gospels.

"After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears
before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on
trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him
to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the
sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14). "

Ehrman

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think they are the same thing and being faithful means one is loyal and then it can be said one has faith/loyalty. At least in Biblical context.

Yes, faithful means loyal. But faith means belief or trust. Again, two very different words.

 

[Muffled]

Per torah, per Moses, HE said that he was raised in the house of pharaoh.

DO you think that he learned all of that material from magic? No! The libraries of egypt of course

That is not good logic. I was raised in the United States but not all of my knowledge comes from texts. Some of it comes from God.

 

[Muffled]

That is because Moses is fictitious. There is all sorts of evidence for that. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

What is your proof that Moses is fictitious?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is not good logic. I was raised in the United States but not all of my knowledge comes from texts. Some of it comes from God.

I dispute that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your proof that Moses is fictitious?

You should have asked for evidence.
There are events that the character was involved with that would have left clear evidence of if true. That evidence is lacking.

Now the proper standard for claims is not to accept them if there is no reliable evidence for them. You have to know that the Bible is not reliable for any of its claims. That means you should be asking yourself why you believe that he is real.

 

[Bthoth]

That is not good logic. I was raised in the United States but not all of my knowledge comes from texts. Some of it comes from God.

and what did god tell you?

 

[SDavis]

The site is acting up. Please post once and hit "refresh" when it gives you that error message. Your post almost certainly went through. Also the crucifixion of Jesus occurred in Jerusalem.

Thank you - a typing error _ It should read the crucifixion occurred *by* Rome.

It is reported because of Jewish customs the crucifixion of Jesus was outside of the city of Jerusalem. No one knows the exact location but it is theorized and taught that it is a part of the city of Jerusalem so when it actually could have been 2/3/4 miles away.

Where Is Golgotha, Where Jesus Was Crucified?

According to the New Testament, Golgotha was the name of the site where Jesus was crucified. Where is Golgotha located in Jerusalem?

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Where Was Golgotha? - Grace Communion International

Visit gci.org and browse Grace Communion International's extensive library of articles on God, the Bible, faith, and the Christian Life.

www.gci.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you - a typing error _ It should read the crucifixion occurred *by* Rome.

It is reported because of Jewish customs the crucifixion of Jesus was outside of the city of Jerusalem. No one knows the exact location but it is theorized and taught that it is a part of the city of Jerusalem so when it actually could have been 2/3/4 miles away.

Where Is Golgotha, Where Jesus Was Crucified?

According to the New Testament, Golgotha was the name of the site where Jesus was crucified. Where is Golgotha located in Jerusalem?

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Where Was Golgotha? - Grace Communion International

Visit gci.org and browse Grace Communion International's extensive library of articles on God, the Bible, faith, and the Christian Life.

www.gci.org

Yes, that could be. It would still have been done on a predominant hill, like Golgotha so that the bodies could be seen. Though he was probably left up on the cross.