joelr
Well-Known Member
New scholarship is saying Gnosticism wasn't an actual sect but was different beliefs in early Christianity
that's all I know about that:
56:37
hmmm,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?
- Thread starter juiwei2000
- Start date
New scholarship is saying Gnosticism wasn't an actual sect but was different beliefs in early Christianity
that's all I know about that:
56:37
hmmm,
Dell
Asteroid insurance?
The link did work when I tried it again...
I'll have to spend some time reading all that.., lot of circular stuff there, quickly read the basic bullet points.
Bart Ehrman did reply to this criticism: Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier/
Its apparent of Ehrman's no replies in Carriers blog that Ehrman has no interest in debating or responding to Carrier.
The beef basically is "Did Jesus existed or not", Carrier is critical promoting the mythisist view and Erman is defending his book. Both are professionals in their field, that's why it is IMO unprofessional proclaiming Ehrman as lying. He has said so much as where he is wrong a willingness to change his view if enough evidence can change his mind and make corrections. He would have to be covering up something to by lying. I dont see that he is doing that.
I also dont see any gain for Ehrman to lie seeing he is an agnostic or as he as said an atheist to Christian theology and doctrine. The contents of his book is nothing new, as some new discovery revealed or something, but thought and work referenced of by many scholars and historians.
One major point is a logical one, that is the existence of the apostle Paul. Paul claims to have met James the apostle, Jesus's brother. And Paul also claimed all that Jesus did wasn't done in a corner. He also met the other apostles who were with Jesus. It's hard to imagine all these claims would not have been refuted by eye witnesses by Jews or Roman's who lived during those times, especially since Christian's where claiming him healing the sick in the whole Jewish nation and raising from the dead.
Another is It would be very difficult for such a movement to have started with out the person of interest. Islam, buddhism and others all have had a person at the beginning. What all they actually were got exaggerated, but still real people in real situations, loved by people willing to drive their message forward.
Comparisons made to gods like ISIS, Diana, Zeus, etc.. have a lot of exceptions, starting with they have no human accounts or companion apostles and are obvious unrealities. Same can be said about Adam and Eve, Satan, demons, angels, the global flood salvation, exodus miracles, Sampsons strength, all obvious myths.
Also it would be no surprise that someone (if not multiple persons) around 100bc - 50ad had been crucified by the Roman's for claiming to be the messiah, king if the Jews. And also no surprise one of them would have been called Jesus, savior, by his followers.
The probability that Jesus existed would seem to be very high.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Carrier explains many of the issues here in the interview.
Carrier argues that the Greek word Paul uses for brother, every other time he uses that word he is meaning brothers in the lord and that Paul uses a different word when describing a blood brother later in his writings.
Paul only mentions people meeting Jesus after he rose from the dead. Not during his earthly travels.
All counter writings to Christianity have been long since destroyed. Of course there are the many Jews who wanted nothing to do with the sect.
Once Christianity became law being caught with any "heretical" material would have been punishable by death. Everything was destroyed except the decided upon scripture.
Christians were not claiming him healing the sick. That comes from Mark and scholarship agrees that the other gospels are re-writes of Mark. There were sects of Christians who didn't believe in the supernatural Jesus, we see mention of them in the Gnostic gospels and mentioned in the NT..."we do not follow cleverly designed myths" - Peter 1:16 this was a criticism of some other group of Christians long since run out of town.
go to 37:47
everything is already right there in the OT,you don't need a person
Everything else is just adding savior messiah mythology to that character.
I mean Jesus' name in the language means SAVIOR?? Isn't that a bit on the nose?
nPeace
Veteran Member
What is another video of opinions?
It does not matter how many opinions you gather.
I can gather just as much from the opposing side.
What have we proved?
Only that there are believers and non-believers.
However, the non-believers cannot disprove the Bible's authenticity - for which there is much evidence.
The Bible is...
1. historically accurate
2. harmonious
3. prophetic
Believing the reliability of the Bible is practical.
There is much more evidence, and time will reveal even more.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No you can't. Scholarship agrees on the fact that the gospels cannot be proven historically.
That's already done.
You sound like you prefer ignorance over knowledge. Like there is something wrong with investigating something to decide if it's true or not?
All non-bias scholars actually have come to a consensus that the supernatural aspects of all religion is myth.
One can have faith. If you say the bible is historically accurate you are either lying or uneducated.
Carrier has shown the gospels to most likely be myth. I've seen all of his debates with scholars, the odds are in his favor.
I also posted the panel of experts including a Christian pastor who all admit we cannot know if the gospels are historically accurate.
Your post about archeology is a complete lie.
Here is the worlds leading biblical archeologist:
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
Shakespeare and Bach are also harmonious.
The Bible made a few mentions of Jesus as savior and then NT writers used that information.
That is not prophetic.
There are also over 200 failed prophecies in the bible -
Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes
so it really isn't prophetic.
Unlike the middle ages where the church didnt' allow people to investigate, and for good reason, now we can. It is possible to look at evidence with an actual open mind. Meaning when you find something out you try to debunk it. All of the non-bias scholars are in agreement so contrary to what you are saying one can get at the truth.
The most accurate prophecy in the Bible is Isaiah 6:9
Isaiah 6:9
Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.
The very nature of history is that history are composed of mainly human accounts of testimonies and can hardly be proven. Even recent history in WWII can hardly proven. The Chinese claim that there's a massacre of 300,000 human lives in Nanjing, which is denied by the Japanese. It only shows that humans don't even have the ability to prove or disprove a recent happening of a mass killing involving 300,000 lives.
That's the nature of what history is. So which history is more accurate? With 300,000 killed as claimed by the Chinese, or without 300,000 killed as claimed by the Japanese?
Here we talking about a mass human activity, not to mention the individual activities. It is so because history is rather writings you either take it or reject it by faith!
Isaiah 6:9
Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.
The very nature of history is that history are composed of mainly human accounts of testimonies and can hardly be proven. Even recent history in WWII can hardly proven. The Chinese claim that there's a massacre of 300,000 human lives in Nanjing, which is denied by the Japanese. It only shows that humans don't even have the ability to prove or disprove a recent happening of a mass killing involving 300,000 lives.
That's the nature of what history is. So which history is more accurate? With 300,000 killed as claimed by the Chinese, or without 300,000 killed as claimed by the Japanese?
Here we talking about a mass human activity, not to mention the individual activities. It is so because history is rather writings you either take it or reject it by faith!
nPeace
Veteran Member
All the time, you are clearly demonstrating your position.
If you believe this
Then why do you say this
...and all the other stuff you said?
Doesn't that demonstrate that you accept what you want, despite having no evidence?
If I on the other hand say there is evidence, that many deny, why do you say the above about me?
What is the difference between you and I?
Are you willing to examine the evidence?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Oh I see, no, not at all. So scholarship shows we cannot prove that the gospels are historical.
So you're saying "see, maybe they are". But it doesn't work that way with supernatural things.
We can't prove Inanna didn't or did exist. We really can't prove Godzilla did or didn't exist. I mean, I saw him in a movie?
But with the supernatural it doesn't exist unless proven. That was the point of this thread - is it proveable, no? Then only faith exists. You claimed something other than faith, which is not true.
I got to my position exactly by examining the evidence. That isn't clear? We know where archeology stands, here is the JERUSALEM POST admitting no evidence for Exodus.
The Exodus: Does archaeology have a say?
and as William Denver says, the OT isn't historical.
We have already covered the gospels being unable to provide proof and the pagan connections.
We also have the fact that all supernatural tales have never turned out to be true so what evidence is there?
You claimed it was historical and that isn't true. The failed prophecies are too numerous to even consider those few savior messiah quotes as prophetic?
How about I write down a 15 digit number and someone has an angel (or whomever) tell them what it is and post it. That would be a start. I would examine that evidence.
Anna Therese
Member
Christianity is not derived from Judaism.
Islam is not derived from Christianity or Judaism.
The three religions do not worship the same God. The Catholic religion worships God Who is the Most Holy and undivided Trinity, one God. Jews and Muslims do not worship the Blessed Trinity.
I said this in another thread but it's worth repeating here:
St. Augustine: "If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."
The Protestant Revolution did not happen because of "disturbing teachings" in the Bible.
How can I be certain my Bible is trustworthy? Because I have the infallible authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church who tells me it is trustworthy.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I’d have to ask what you mean by “trustworthy?” Trustworthy in what way? With regard to what? Trustworthy in its historical and traditional continuity? If so, then yes, it’s extremely trustworthy. It is not particularly trustworthy with regard to historic fact — but then, it’s not a fact-reporting document. It remains trustworthy to what it was created to be: our story of our relationship with God.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Church has never spoken ex cathedra on the scriptures. The only infallible statements concern the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
In fact, the canon is in dispute between the several arms of that body.
In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are not trustworthy sources of knowledge and truth. So it doesn't matter what any of these religions you mention claim; they should all be considered fiction.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Same god. That spirit thingy was around in the OT.
Was able to live and enter people in the NT. But that wouldn't change who the god was in the OT to the NT?
Not sure how this makes it a different god?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1) No it isn’t. We know the earth to be older than 6000 years. There’s no evidence for a global flood, or for Hebrews in Egypt. David’s army could not have been as large as we’re told. None of that history is accurate.
2) No it isn’t. The Synoptics all tell vastly different stories of the birth and resurrection. There are two vastly differing accounts of creation — just to name a few.
The Bible is reliable at being what it is; not at what you wish it to be.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Your history’s not quite accurate with regard to the NT and setting the canon. The rest is accurate enough. My question for you, though, is: “trust in what way?”
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes. It was.
Could you please advise where i am inaccurate?
Many trust the bible to be accurate, faultless, the perfect book.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So, your second point: what many trust the bible to be isn’t the issue. The issue is: is the Bible trustworthy. As you pointed out, it is trustworthy to be what it is. It is not trustworthy to be what some wish it to be.
To your first point: the NT texts were pretty much distributed separately or in differing collections until the canon was closed about 450 C.E. It was no more changed through editing than the OT texts — in many cases, less redacted. The major argument was over what to include in the canon. Some texts included in earlier lists were excluded, some that were excluded were included.
Trustworthy is a subjective term, in the case of the bible it is trustworthy to some, not to others.
I cannot agree that it was no more changed. Taking todays 100s of versions, each one different in some way. In history bibles were coped by hand, i cannot see how errors did not creep in.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Of course it was, but no more so than the OT texts. In many cases, less so, since the OT texts are much, much older and had already been redacted by the time the church got hold of them and further edited them as they did the NT texts.